EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0095, dated May 8, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0095), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2, and EC 225 LP helicopters, all serial numbers.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and EC225LP helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2024 (89 FR 7302). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a report of cracks on the bowl due to over-torquing.

The NPRM proposed to require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2023-0095, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the EASA AD.” The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine EASA AD 2023-0095 in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0042.

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

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters.

EASA AD 2023-0095 requires a one-time inspection of the bowls of the LH and RH fuel filters for cracks and seepage. Depending on the inspection results, EASA AD 2023-0095 requires replacement of an affected part with a serviceable part, as defined in EASA AD 2023-0095. EASA AD 2023-0095 also allows certain fuel filters to be installed on a helicopter if certain actions are accomplished.

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

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-28.00.88, and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-28A030, both Revision 0, and both dated April 25, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for a visual inspection the bowls on the RH and LH fuel filters for any cracks and seepage. Depending on the inspection results, this service information specifies procedures to remove and replace an affected fuel filter. This service information also specifies sending an affected fuel filter along with certain information to Airbus Helicopters, and performing an aspect check after replacement of the affected parts.

EASA AD 2023-0095 requires replacing each affected fuel filter with a serviceable fuel filter if any discrepancy is detected, whereas this AD requires removing each affected fuel filter from service and replacing it with a serviceable fuel filter, as described in EASA AD 2023-0095, if any crack or seepage is detected.

Service information referenced in EASA AD 2023-0095 specifies reporting certain information and sending affected parts to Airbus Helicopters, whereas this AD does not require sending information or parts to Airbus Helicopters.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 40 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Inspecting each bowl for cracks (with 2 bowls per helicopter) and seepage will take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $6,800 for the U.S. fleet.

Replacing an affected fuel filter with a serviceable fuel filter will take approximately 1 work-hour and parts will cost approximately $6,290 for an estimated cost of $6,375 per fuel filter replacement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2024 (89 FR 14417). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2022-0010, dated January 20, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0010), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2022-0010 states an in-flight abnormal oscillatory action of an Model AW189 helicopter was reported during automated G/S approaches. EASA AD 2022-0010 states subsequent investigation identified sealant on the G/S antenna coaxial connectors.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of certain G/S antennas and G/S antenna coaxial connectors for the presence of any sealant; cleaning parts and removing any sealant; performing an external G/S ATP; and taking corrective actions if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and address sealant on or around the G/S antenna. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to erratic signals from the G/S antenna, which could result in reduced capability of the helicopter to perform safe automated approaches. See EASA AD 2022-0010 for additional background information.

You may examine EASA AD 2022-0010 in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0236.

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

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters.

EASA AD 2022-0010 requires visually inspecting G/S antenna part number (P/N) 6208-88-62 and G/S antenna coaxial connectors P/N PE4958, which are both parts of G/S antenna kit P/N 8G3430F00111, for any sealant. If any sealant is found, EASA AD 2022-0010 requires removing any sealant, and performing further inspections and corrective actions.

EASA AD 2022-0010 also requires performing an ATP and depending on the results, replacing, and removing certain parts, and additional tests. EASA AD 2022-0010 allows the affected G/S antenna and G/S antenna coaxial connectors to be installed on a helicopter if certain requirements are met.

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

The FAA also reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 189-295, dated November 29, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for visually inspecting the G/S antenna for the presence of sealant; removing any sealant that is detected; removing and replacing any affected parts; performing any corrective actions if necessary, performing an ATP, which includes verifying flight display, decibel milliwatts, and pass/fail information; and reporting certain information to the manufacturer.

If any discrepancy is found during the ATP, EASA AD 2022-0010 requires replacing each affected part with a serviceable part, whereas this AD requires removing each affected part from service and replacing it with a serviceable part.

Service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0010 contains an inspection report (ANNEX B), whereas this AD does not require completing that information.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Visually inspecting for sealant around the G/S antenna will take approximately 5 work-hours for an estimated cost of $425 per helicopter and up to $1,700 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, removing any sealant and cleaning any part will take approximately 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter.

Performing an ATP will take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and up to $340 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, removing and replacing a G/S antenna, to include removing and replacing the connectors will take approximately 3 work-hours and parts will cost $100,100 for an estimated cost of $100,355 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would that apply to certain CFE Model CFE738-1-1B engines with HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2024 (89 FR 16710). The NPRM was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that revealed certain HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks, installed on certain CFE738-1-1B model engines, were manufactured from powder metal material suspected to contain iron inclusion. Further investigation by the manufacturer determined that the iron inclusion is attributed to deficiencies in the manufacturing process and may cause reduced material properties and a lower fatigue life capability, which may result in structural failure. The manufacturer also informed the FAA that additional risk assessments determined that there were no failed events associated with the discovery of this iron inclusion material, however concluded that replacement of the affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks is necessary. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of affected HPT stage 1 and HPT stage 2 disks with parts eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed CFE Service Bulletin CFE738-72-A8082, dated July 4, 2023, which specifies the affected part and serial numbers of the HPT stage 1 and stage 2 disks and specifies replacement instructions for the affected parts. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 29 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-14-10, Amendment 39-22115 (87 FR 42315, July 15, 2022), (AD 2022-14-10). AD 2022-14-10 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2022-14-10 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the horizontal floor beam on FR 36, repetitive inspections for cracking of the fastener holes of the front spar vertical stringers on FR 36, and repair if necessary, and, for certain airplanes, a potential terminating action modification of the center wing box area. The FAA issued AD 2022-14-10 to address fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, which, if not corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2024 (89 FR 20364). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0205, dated November 21, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0205) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that analysis of the full-scale certification fatigue testing findings indicated that Model A321-271N airplanes are also subject to the unsafe condition. Fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2022-14-10 and add Model A321-271N airplanes to the applicability, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0205. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0757.

The FAA received a comment from United Airlines who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA added paragraphs (h)(5) and (6) of this AD to clarify who can provide approval instructions for certain actions. These paragraphs correspond to actions retained from AD 2022-14-10 and were inadvertently omitted from the proposed AD.

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

EASA AD 2023-0205 specifies procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections for cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers, horizontal floor beam radius and fastener holes of the front spear vertical stringers on FR 36, and for installing new fasteners. EASA AD 2023-0205 further describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the horizontal floor beam, repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the fastener holes of the front spar vertical stringers on FR 36, repetitive rototest inspections of the fastener holes of the spar vertical stringers, and repair. EASA AD 2023-0205 also describes procedures for the modification of the center wing box area. The modification is required for airplanes in configuration 1, 2 or 3; and for airplanes in configuration 5, 6, or 7, the modification is optional and is a terminating action for the repetitive inspections when done within a specified time frame. The modification includes related investigative and corrective actions. Related investigative actions include an HFEC inspection on the radius of the rib flanges, a rototest inspection of the fastener holes, detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking on the cut edges, detailed and rototest inspections on all open fastener holes, and an inspection to determine if secondary structure brackets are installed. Corrective actions include rework of the secondary structure bracket and repair.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,755 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all PW Model PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 engines with a certain HPT 2nd stage blade assembly installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2023 (88 FR 58114). The NPRM was prompted by an IFSD caused by the fracture of HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly lugs, which resulted in blade liberation and a titanium fire in the HPC.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a visual inspection of the HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies for missing contact marks, a dimensional shadowgraph inspection of the HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies for blade root profile dimensional deviations, and an ECI of the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly for conforming slot flatness. The NPRM also proposed to require removal from service and replacement of any HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly or HPT 2nd stage blade assembly that does not pass any inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from six commenters. The commenters were The Boeing Company (Boeing), Delta Air Lines (Delta), European Air Transport (EAT), FedEx Express (FedEx), MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH (MTU), and United Parcel Service (UPS). Boeing supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received from Delta, EAT, FedEx, MTU, and UPS on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Delta requested that the FAA allow hubs with an ECI performed on 25% of the blade slots to be inspected in accordance with the updated dimensional ECI procedure at the next piece part exposure of the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly, rather than being inspected within the cycle limit of the NPRM. Delta noted that Method 2, Step 4 in PW Alert Service Bulletin PW2000 A72-777, Initial Issue, dated September 29, 2021 (PW2000 A72-777, Initial Issue) requires that HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assemblies be installed that have passed the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly ECI inspection specified in PW2000 Engine Manual, Task 72-52-16-200-006, but does not provide guidance on the required amount of slots to be inspected. Delta also noted that in the beginning of the HPT Field Management Program for this unsafe condition and prior to the updated ECI procedure being released for the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly, T2 blades were inspected for conformance and installed into HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assemblies that were made serviceable with previous ECI instructions specified in the PW2000 Engine Manual, where only 16 out of 64 (25%) slots were required to be eddy current inspected.

The FAA disagrees with the request because there is a higher probability of identifying damage to the hub when 100% of the slots are inspected. Additionally, allowing hubs that have had an ECI performed on 25% of blade slots to wait until the next piece-part exposure for the updated ECI would increase the risk of failure. The FAA removed previous credit for PW2000 A72-777, Initial Issue, to ensure only HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assemblies with ECI performed on 100% of the blade slots comply with this AD. However, once this AD is published, any person may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested that the FAA provide guidance on whether hubs that were divorced from their mating blades and do not have the required inspection results are exempt from the requirements of the NPRM, provided that the replacement set of blades to be installed are conforming to the visual and shadowgraph inspection requirements of PW Alert Service Bulletin PW2000 A72-777, Revision 2, dated April 11, 2023 (PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2). Delta stated that there is no way to perform the actions required in the NPRM and PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 to determine serviceability related to this unsafe condition for piece part hubs that were already divorced from their mating blades because previously installed blades were not traced and may have already gone through overhaul process or were scrapped. Delta noted that after overhaul or scrapping of blades, visual contact patterns and blade profile are no longer available for inspection.

The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary. Hubs that are divorced from their mating blades are not exempt from the requirements of this final rule and are considered unserviceable, and therefore no exemption is necessary. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested that the FAA define the methodology for returning a hub to service using Section 1, Step 1.E. of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2, and as it relates to previous methods of compliance in previous revisions and previous PW Special Instructions (SIs). Delta noted that Section 1, Step 1.E. of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 states that if an HPT 2nd stage blade assembly fails the visual inspection as specified in Step 1.B., all related HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies pass the shadowgraph inspection as specified in Step 1.C., and the related HPT 2nd stage hub assembly passes the ECI as specified in Step 1.D, the HPT 2nd Stage Blade Assemblies could be returned to P&W Customer Technical Service for additional inspection to identify the hub serviceability. Delta also noted that PW provided Pratt and Whitney Cover E.A. No. 22FA014, dated 26 October 2022, to accept these hubs into service.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA notes that while Section 1, Step 1.E. of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 is an optional method to return the hubs to service, it is not an action required by this AD and, therefore, defining the methodology for returning a hub to service is unnecessary. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested that the FAA clarify if the required for compliance (RC) steps listed in PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 carry over to the previous versions of the ASB and previous versions of the PW SIs in order to provide credit for previous actions. Alternatively, Delta requested that the FAA provide the specific steps from each of the previous service information documents that are required in order to receive credit for previous actions. Delta noted that none of the previous revisions of the service information contain RC steps, which could cause confusion to operators regarding whether to request an AMOC for deviations from those instructions.

The FAA agrees to revise paragraph (h) of the final rule by removing PW2000 A72-777, Initial Issue, and instead including PW SI NO. 62F-21, dated June 7, 2021, PW SI NO. 62F-21A, dated October 4, 2021, PW SI NO. 73F-21, Revision A, dated September 29, 2021 (SI NO. 73F-21, Rev. A), and PW SI NO. 73F-21, Initial Issue, dated April 6, 2021 (SI NO. 73F-21, Initial Issue).

Delta requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to allow the shadowgraph inspections of the hub to be performed in accordance with all previous revisions to PW SI NO. 78F-21, Revision F, dated June 13, 2022 (SI NO. 78F-21, Rev. F). Delta noted that PW Alert Service Bulletin PW2000 A72-777, Revision 1, dated December 21, 2022 (PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 1) and PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 refer to “SI 78F-21, Rev F released 6/13/2022 or later revision,” and previous revisions of SI NO. 78F-21 are permitted by PW2000 A72-777, Initial Issue. Delta also noted that several of the PW SI revisions were issued prior to PW2000 A72-777, Initial Issue.

The FAA disagrees with the request to allow the shadowgraph inspections of the hub to be performed in accordance with previous revisions of SI NO. 78F-21. SI NO. 78F-21, Rev. F already provides previous credit for previous revisions, which makes it unnecessary to provide credit for actions done using the previous revisions. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to allow the visual inspections of the hub for contact marks to be performed in accordance with SI NO. 73F-21, Initial Issue. Delta noted that PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 refers to “SI 73F-21, Rev A released 9/29/2021 or later revision,” and SI NO. 73F-21, Initial Issue is permitted per PW2000 A72-777. Delta also noted that several of the PW SI revisions were issued prior to PW2000 A72-777.

The FAA agrees with the request and has revised paragraph (h) of this AD to include credit for actions done in accordance with SI NO. 73F-21, Initial Issue.

Delta requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to clarify that communication from PW may be used as a means to accept new blades that meet the intent of SI NO. 78F-21, Initial Issue and later revisions. Delta noted that they have been using EagleNet Cases from PW for new blades where the intent of SI NO. 78F-21, Initial Issue and later revisions was accomplished. Delta also noted that PW does not include SI NO. 78F-21, Initial Issue or later revisions on the form FAA 8130-3 for new blades, and the markings on the blades are not always listed.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA notes that this AD already refers to PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2, as the appropriate service information, which also references SI NO. 78F-21, Rev. F. Additionally, SI NO. 78F-21, Rev. F allows credit for communications from PW as a means to accept new blades that meet the intent of SI NO. 78F-21, Initial Issue and later revisions. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested that the FAA comment or provide guidance related to on a typographical error contained in the header of pages 3 through 8 of SI NO. 73F-21, Revision B, dated April 10, 2023 (SI NO. 73F-21, Rev. B). The typographical error incorrectly lists the document as Special Instruction No. 73F-21 A.

The FAA acknowledges that there is a typographical error contained in the header of pages 3 through 8 of SI NO. 73F-21, Rev. B which incorrectly lists the document as Special Instruction No. 73F-21 A. However, the typographical error does not change the content of the document, which is only allowed as credit for actions accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD. Additionally, after the effective date of this AD, the appropriate service information for the required actions is PW2000 A72-777 R7, Rev. 2. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested that the FAA add the following note from SI NO. 73F-21, Rev. B to the NPRM; “Accomplishment of PW2000 Engine Manual (Revision 131 or later) 72-52-17 Inspection/Check-14 is equivalent to the accomplishment of this Special Instruction 73F-21.” Delta noted that since SI NO. 73F-21, Rev. B includes the PW2000 Engine Manual allowance, the same allowance should carry over to previous revisions of SI NO. 73F-21 that define the actions to correct the unsafe condition.

The FAA disagrees with the request. Earlier revisions of SI NO. 73F-21 did not contain this note, and the note specifically applies to SI NO. 73F-21, Rev. B. Additionally, after the effective date of this AD, the appropriate service information for the required actions is PW2000 A72-777 R7, Rev. 2. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

EAT requested that the FAA update the NPRM to clarify that actions identified as “RC” in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2, are one-time actions. EAT inferred that without this clarification, engines would need to undergo the required inspections every 1,800 flight cycles, which would limit the on-wing time for all worldwide engines. FedEx requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to include a terminating action paragraph. FedEx pointed out that neither the NPRM nor the required service information explicitly state that the actions are one-time only.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The actions required by this final rule are identified as “RC” in PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2, which is the required service information. While not explicitly stated in either this final rule or the required service information, those actions are one-time only and have no stated repetitive compliance times. The FAA also notes that terminating action paragraphs are used specifically to terminate repetitive actions. However, the FAA is not mandating repetitive actions in this AD and, therefore, a terminating action paragraph is unnecessary. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

EAT requested that the FAA clarify that parts that were overhauled using the engine manual prior to the availability of PW2000 A72-777 should be eligible for installation. EAT noted that the NPRM and PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 do not mention HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assemblies which were repaired/overhauled before the initial issue of PW2000 A72-777 in September 2021. EAT also noted that the parts were overhauled in accordance with the valid engine manual at that time and therefore serviceable and eligible for installation.

The FAA agrees to clarify. Parts that were overhauled using the engine manual prior to the availability of PW2000 A72-777 are not eligible for installation. The FAA is publishing this AD to address a quality escape on the HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies. Removing the non-conforming blades and the corresponding HPT 2nd stage turbine hub from service is necessary to correct the unsafe condition. If the actions performed prior to the effective date of this AD do not meet the definition of a part eligible for installation, the part cannot be installed on an engine. Additionally, the FAA has included credit for previous actions, using certain service information, in paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that those actions were done before the effective date of this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

EAT requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to allow HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assemblies removed prior to the initial issue of PW2000 A72-777 to pass only the 100% lug ECI inspection, instead of requiring all blades previously installed on the hub to pass the visual and shadowgraph inspection. EAT pointed out that the requirement for all blades to pass the visual and shadowgraph inspections was not a mandatory action at that time.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In order to correct the unsafe condition, the HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies with part number (P/N) 1B7522 must pass the visual and shadowgraph inspections in order to be considered a part eligible for installation. Additionally, the serviceability of the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly is dependent on the blade assemblies passing the visual and shadowgraph inspections. If the blade assemblies do not pass those inspections, then the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly also does not pass and becomes unserviceable. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

FedEx requested that the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2, Section 2, Paragraph 1.B. to provide guidance for operators that began conducting inspections early in collaboration with the engine manufacturer. FedEx noted that the general visual inspection requirement for blades installed on engines with serial numbers listed in Table 1 on page 9 of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2 is waived by a Note in Section 2, Paragraph 1.B. of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2. FedEx also noted that some engines were inspected before the initial release of PW2000 A72-777, before the release of earlier revisions of the SI, or per existing instructions for continued airworthiness that were published at the time which makes it impossible to directly claim compliance with the actions identified as “RC” within the Accomplishment Instructions of PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2. FedEx also provided the following example: some engines were inspected per PW2000 Engine Manual 72-52-15, Insp/Chk -06 (Firtree ECI) and 72-52-17, Insp/Chk -14 (blade shadowgraph) in the period between February, 2021 and September, 2021 (prior to their October 1, 2021 revision date).

The FAA agrees to provide guidance for operators that performed early inspections in collaboration with the engine manufacturer. Credit for compliance with the Firtree ECI can only be claimed if 100% of the slots were inspected. Credit may not be claimed for the previous ECI of the HPT T2 hub slots for the period between February 2021 and September 2021 because those instructions only required 25% of the slots to be inspected, which does not fully mitigate the unsafe condition. The FAA notes that the final field management plan to address this unsafe condition is described in this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

MTU requested that the FAA clarify how to address inspections for engines that have a mix of affected and unaffected HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies installed. MTU notes that PW2000 SB 72-775 allows interchangeability of old and new blade assemblies (differentiated by P/N). MTU also inferred that the NPRM is not applicable to an engine which has installed all 64 HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies having P/N 1B8722 in post PW2000 SB 72-775 configuration.

Engines with a mix of affected and unaffected HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies installed must perform the required inspections on the affected blades having P/N 1B7522 only, and 100% of the HPT T2 hub slots. HPT T2 hubs that fail the ECI on any slot must be removed from service. P/N 1B8722 blade assemblies are not required to perform the inspections required by this AD. If an engine has 64 HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies having P/N 1B8722 installed, then this AD is not applicable to that engine. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

MTU requested that the FAA provide credit for previous actions done in accordance with SI NO. 73F-21, Initial Issue, dated April 6, 2021, or earlier.

The FAA agrees with the request and has updated paragraph (h) of this AD to provide credit for the required actions done before the effective date of this AD using SI NO. 78F-21, dated April 12, 2021. However, operators that prefer to address the unsafe condition by means other than those specified in the referenced service information may request an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

UPS requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to allow a longer compliance time. UPS noted that PW part shortages and supply chain constraints have resulted in long lead times. UPS also stated that the required compliance times are not adequate to maintain PW2000 engine spare levels, which would negatively impact UPS operations.

The FAA disagrees with the request to allow a longer compliance time in this AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time, the FAA considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. The FAA has determined that the compliance time provides an acceptable level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed PW2000 A72-777, Rev. 2, which specifies procedures for performing a visual inspection of the HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies for missing contact marks, dimensional shadowgraph inspection of the HPT 2nd stage blade assemblies for dimensional deviations, and an ECI of the HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly for conforming slot flatness. This service information also specifies removal from service of any HPT 2nd stage turbine hub assembly or HPT 2nd stage blade assembly that does not pass any inspection. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 425 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2024 (89 FR 20139). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-52, dated July 12, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-52) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that during production flight tests, several oxygen masks were found disconnected from their accompanying portable oxygen bottles. An investigation determined that servicing instructions sent to the supplier did not include reconnecting oxygen masks. Since the problem was discovered, proper procedures were sent to the supplier to reconnect the masks and bottles. If an oxygen mask is not connected to the accompanying portable oxygen bottle, oxygen will not be provided to the cabin crew and/or passengers during a sudden decompression above 10,000 feet or during a first aid situation.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the portable oxygen bottles and reconnecting the masks to the accompanying portable oxygen bottles if not connected, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-52. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0466.

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

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

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-52 specifies procedures for a general visual inspection (GVI) on portable oxygen bottles and reconnection of the mask to the accompanying portable oxygen bottles if not connected. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all RRD Model Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 01, 2024 (89 FR 6450). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0165, dated August 22, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0165) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that manufacturer inspections detected cracking and separation of blade pairs in the weld region of certain LPT stage 1 blade assemblies. A blade assembly consists of a pair of blades welded together at the outer shroud. There are 85 LPT stage 1 blade assemblies in one set. Such cracking and separation could cause failure of affected parts and damage to the LPT module.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2023-0165, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0043.

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

Since the NPRM published, the FAA determined that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD incorrectly included “Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Trent 1000.” Therefore, the FAA has revised the applicability of this AD to remove that text. Since there are no additional engines on the U.S. registry, no changes have been made to the Costs of Compliance paragraph in this final rule.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0165, which specifies procedures for inspection of affected LPT stage 1 blade assembly outer shrouds and replacement of the LPT stage 1 blade set and disk. EASA AD 2023-0165 also specifies a reduction of the repetitive inspection intervals if cracking or separation is detected and meets certain criteria. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 28 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska and

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

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

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (89 FR 51407; June 18, 2024) for Docket FAA-2024-0635, which modified Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the Yerington Municipal Airport, Yerington, NV. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that line three of the Class E airspace legal description displayed the geographic coordinates for the airport as “lat. 39°00′19″ N, long. 111°09′24″ W,” which was incorrect. The geographic coordinates for the airport in line three of the legal description should be “lat. 39°00′19″ N, long. 119°09′24″ W.” This action corrects the error.

In FR Doc 2024-13179 at 51408, published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2024, the FAA makes the following corrections:

1. On page 51408, in the third column, correct the first three lines of the legal description for Yerington, NV, to read as follows:

Over the years, Tiki Lee's Dock Bar of Sparrows Point, MD has submitted permit applications under 33 CFR 100.15 for two separate, but concurrently held, annual events in the Back River. These events are “Tiki Lee's Shootout on the River High Speed Power Boat” event, and “Tiki Lee's Shootout on the River Air Show.” Tiki Lee's Dock Bar has indicated that it intends to continue to submit applications annually to hold these events (on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in July). In response, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; Back River, Baltimore County, MD,” 89 FR 34173 (April 30, 2024). There, we explained why we had issued the NPRM and we invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that ended May 30, 2024, we received one comment.

The COTP, Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that the potential hazards associated with the high-speed power boat event and air show will present safety concerns for anyone participating in this event and for spectator vessels and non-affiliated vessels operating within nearby waters of the Back River. The purpose of this rule is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is promulgating this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.

As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April 30, 2024. This comment discusses the alleged targeting of oystermen and does not address issues within the scope of our published NPRM. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The COTP is establishing special local regulations which may be subject to enforcement in a particular year on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th weekend (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) in July, depending on when the boat race and air show are held. The regulated area for both events covers all navigable waters of the Back River within an area which is approximately 4,200 yards in length and 1,200 yards in width. Within the regulated area, specific zones are designated as a “Course Area,” a “Buffer zone,” an “Aerobatics Box,” and three “Spectator Areas.” These are the “East Spectator Fleet Area,” the “Northwest Spectator Fleet Area,” and the Southwest Spectator Fleet Area.”

Consistent with 33 CFR 100.35(a), the COTP is promulgating this regulation, which provides that he or she and the Coast Guard Event PATCOM have authority to forbid or control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area will be required to immediately comply with the directions given by the COTP or Event PATCOM, as is now provided in 33 CFR 100.501(d). If a person or vessel fails to follow such directions, the Coast Guard may expel them from the area, issue them a citation for failure to comply, or both.

Only participant vessels would be allowed to enter the course area and aerobatics box. Except for Tiki Lee's Shootout on the River participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get permission from the COTP or Event PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel operators would be able to request permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by contacting the Event PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Operators of vessels already at berth desiring to move those vessels when the event is subject to enforcement would be required to obtain permission before doing so.

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 regulated area, which would only impact a small, designated area of Back River. This waterway supports mainly recreational vessel traffic, which at its peak, occurs during the summer season. Although this regulated area extends across the entire width of the waterway, the rule would allow vessels and persons to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to transit the regulated area as instructed by Event PATCOM. Such vessels must operate at safe speed, one that minimizes wake, and they must not loiter within the navigable channel while within the regulated area. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the enforcement status of the regulated area.

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.

Consistent with § 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we will assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule may 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SPDG program is to assist State educational agencies (SEAs) in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional development in early intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results for children with disabilities.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.323A.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.

We published a notice of proposed priorities and requirements (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on March 28, 2024 (89 FR 21469). That document contained background information and the Department's reasons for proposing the priorities and requirements.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, three parties submitted comments addressing the priorities, requirements, and directed questions. We discuss comments related to the priorities and requirements under each priority to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities or requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities or requirements since publication of the NPP follows.

Comment: In response to the Department's directed question regarding challenges to developing and supporting grow your own (GYO) programs, one commenter enumerated challenges at the State, district, and participant level. At the State level, the commenter identified the lack of sufficient funding to expand the program and fund personnel to oversee programmatic and fiscal requirements as a major challenge. At the district level, the commenter noted that finding candidates to participate in the programs and securing sufficient funding and resources, including time for oversight, were major challenges, along with the absence of coaching for GYO participants. In addition, the commenter stated that rural districts struggle with a small candidate pool.

The commenter shared that GYO participants have challenges maintaining employment while completing their coursework, are not readily able to pay for tuition, struggle to successfully complete college-level coursework, and have difficulty passing entrance and subject area exams, and managing responsibilities in the home, work duties, and college coursework.

Discussion: The Department appreciates learning about the potential challenges faced at each level of the education system and will provide support to SPDG projects to help ensure they foresee these challenges and provide supports for GYO districts, schools, and participants.

Changes: None.

Comment: In response to the Department's directed question regarding supports that would assist SEAs in developing and implementing career pathways for those interested in becoming fully certified special education teachers, one commenter shared that the following supports would be helpful: funding, additional partners to coordinate program management, exemplar pathway models that include programmatic recommendations, and recruitment and retention resources that support successful program completion. The commenter shared it would be helpful for SEAs to receive technical assistance (TA) and targeted coaching that supports building and implementing pathways for special education personnel.

Discussion: An SEA may use their SPDG resources to provide the supports described by the commenter in the implementation of a GYO, teacher residency, or registered teacher apprenticeship program. As for support for the SEAs, the Department currently provides TA and targeted coaching via the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR Center).

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter responded to the Department's question about supports that would help SEAs develop and implement a system to address the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with disabilities. The commenter shared that longitudinal studies that track candidates from preparation through their fifth year of teaching and that assess outcomes such as teacher efficacy, teacher retention, and student outcomes would support SEAs in understanding the specific needs of teachers based on various certification pathways. These data would also allow SEAs and their partners to anticipate and create structures to support the professional learning needs of teachers pursuing various certification pathways.

Discussion: We agree that modernized statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) can be a valuable tool in identifying and addressing the professional learning and certification needs of personnel, including by providing the ability to respond to policy needs, such as addressing the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification and understanding the educator pipeline and its impact. We encourage SPDG grantees to take opportunities to modernize their SLDS. To date, 34 States have used SLDS funds to establish linkages between K-12, postsecondary, and workforce data. For more information about SLDS grant opportunities, please visit https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/grant_information.asp.

Changes: None.

Comment: In response to the Department's directed question about which stakeholders SEAs should collaborate with to develop and implement a system to address the professional learning and certification needs of personnel with an emergency certification who work with children with disabilities, one commenter stated SEAs should collaborate with educator preparation programs to enhance traditional teacher preparation programs and partner in supporting GYO, teacher residency, and registered teacher apprenticeship programs. The commenter also stated that SEAs should partner with LEAs and professional organizations for education leaders, including special education directors, elementary and secondary school principals, and other school administrators, to identify the needs of teachers and to provide targeted resources and supports.

In addition, the commenter stated that SEAs should engage with national TA centers to stay informed of evidence-based practices for effective pre-service preparation and in-service supports, as well as to partner with their parent and training information center to train teachers on the parent perspective and how to effectively engage and partner with families.

Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for these thoughtful recommendations. Under section 653(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the State personnel development plan must describe how the applicant will work in partnership with agencies and programs addressing the education of children and youth with disabilities to strengthen the project's efforts. The partners suggested by the commenter are all required or permitted partners under section 652(b) of the IDEA, and we agree that they may serve as important collaborators. Additionally, one of the Final Common Requirements is that a project must align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs, as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing professional development and data systems.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended the Department incentivize SEAs to develop programs that include educational audiologists and speech-language pathologists.

Discussion: Educational audiologists and speech-language pathologists are included in the definition of “personnel” used by the SPDG program (section 651(b) of the IDEA). Accordingly, applicants may propose to include educational audiologists and speech-language pathologists in SPDG professional development activities.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department use the SPDG program to incentivize appropriate workloads for personnel, suggesting that using SPDG funds to analyze and right-size educator workload will increase the likelihood that students receive the most appropriate supports to meet their educational and functional goals.

Discussion: SPDG funds are used to address specific State-identified needs. The notice inviting applications for the FY 2024 SPDG competition, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , provides examples of activities that may be funded with an SPDG grant, including the use of funds to support reduced class schedules and caseloads.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter, responding to Proposed Priority 1, recommended SEAs and institutions of higher education collaborate to provide grant programs and scholarships for high school students to begin working toward paraprofessional and teacher certification.

Discussion: The SPDG may be used to support collaborative recruitment efforts, including providing grant programs and scholarships for high school students to begin working toward paraprofessional and teacher certification. Per the Final Common Requirements, an applicant must describe the proposed in-State and national partners that the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter shared that virtual reality simulations may enable pathway participants and other personnel to learn more about teaching children with disabilities and how to navigate complex situations.

Discussion: GYO, apprenticeships, and residency pathways and professional development programs may benefit from the use of virtual reality teaching simulations that allow personnel to practice important skills prior to using them with children. Nothing in Priority 1 would preclude an applicant from proposing to use this technology.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters supported Proposed Priority 1 as a means to develop new and dynamic workforce pathways for the special education workforce system.

Discussion: The Department appreciates support for this priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: In response to Proposed Priority 2, one commenter recommended that SPDG projects use empathy interviews to identify barriers faced by personnel on their path to full certification.

Discussion: We agree that understanding barriers and facilitators to reaching full certification is an important aspect of improving personnel preparation and retention systems. SPDG projects may choose to use empathy interviews to gather formative data to help improve their services.

Changes: None.

Priority 1: Providing Career Pathways for Those Interested in Becoming Fully Certified Special Education Teachers, Including Paraprofessionals, Through Residency, GYO, and Registered Apprenticeships Programs.

Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special education teachers by establishing a new, or enhancing an existing, teacher residency, GYO, or registered teacher apprenticeship program that minimizes or eliminates the cost of certification for special education teacher candidates and provides opportunities for candidates to be paid, including being provided with a stipend (which, for programs that include paid experience for the duration of the certification program, can be met through paragraph (i), below), to cover the time spent gaining classroom experience during their certification program.

A project implementing a new or enhanced teacher residency, GYO, or registered teacher apprenticeship program must—

(a) Use data-driven strategies and evidence-based approaches to increase recruitment, successful completion, and retention of the special education teachers supported by the project;

(b) Provide standards for participants to enter into and complete the program;

(c) Be aligned to evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices for effective educator preparation;

(d) Have little to no financial burden for program participants, or provide for loan forgiveness, grants, or scholarship programs;

(e) Provide opportunities for candidates to be paid, including being provided with a stipend, to cover time spent in clinical experience during their certification program;

(f) Develop a plan to monitor program quality;

(g) Require completion of a bachelor's degree either before entering or as a result of the teacher residency, GYO, or teacher apprenticeship program;

(h) Result in the satisfaction of all requirements for full State teacher licensure or certification, excluding emergency, temporary, provisional, or other sub-standard licensure or certification;

(i) Provide increasing levels of responsibility for the resident/GYO participant/apprentice during at least one year of paid on-the-job learning/clinical experience, during which a mentor teacher is the teacher of record; and

(j) Develop a plan to ensure the program has funding after the end of the project period.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Priority 2: Supporting Emergency Certified Special Education Teachers to Become Fully Certified.

Projects designed to increase the number of fully certified special education teachers by implementing plans that address the emergency certification needs of personnel who work with children with disabilities. The plans must—

(a) Identify the barriers and challenges to full certification that are experienced by special education personnel on emergency certifications;

(b) Include evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) strategies to address those barriers and challenges and assist special education personnel on emergency certifications to obtain full certification, consistent with State-approved or State-recognized requirements, within three years;

(c) Include training and coaching on, at a minimum—

(1) The skills needed to collaboratively develop, implement, and monitor standards-based IEPs;

(2) High-leverage and evidence-based instructional and classroom management practices; and

(3) The provision of wrap-around services ( e.g., social, emotional, and mental health supports), special education services, and other supports for children with disabilities; and

(d) Provide participating special education personnel on emergency certifications with opportunities to apply the evidence-based skills and practices described in paragraph (c) in the classroom.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Priority 3: Person-Centered IEPs that Support Instructional Progress.

Projects designed to provide pre-service and in-service training to school and district personnel, including IEP team members ( e.g., special education and general education teachers, related service personnel who work with children with disabilities) and administrators, to improve their skills in developing and implementing person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress and improve functional outcomes  1 for children with disabilities. Projects must—

(a) Provide training and coaching to administrators and IEP team members to increase their ability to develop, implement, and monitor person-centered IEPs that support instructional progress so that they can—

(1) Use appropriate data to determine the child's instructional and functional strengths and needs;

(2) Increase the child's learning time and opportunities with general education peers, as appropriate, based on research;

(3) Choose and use evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices for core instruction; and

(4) Supplement core instruction with special education services.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Priority 4: Principals as Instructional Leaders Who Support Collaborative Service Provision.

Projects designed to provide professional development to improve the instructional leadership provided by principals and other school leaders, district leaders, and teacher leaders to promote educational equity for children with disabilities. Projects must provide training and coaching to assist administrators to—

(a) Create and support equitable school schedules and other operations that enable collaborative services from general and special education staff;

(b) Support schoolwide inclusionary practices within a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework;

(c) Support evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) professional development for their staff related to—

(1) Effective content instruction;

(2) Data for decision-making and continuous progress monitoring;

(3) IEP development and implementation; and

(4) Wrap-around services;

(d) Actively engage families and school communities to identify and address concerns regarding, and barriers to, accessibility, equity, and inclusiveness, using frameworks such as universal design; and

(e) Provide administrators structured learning opportunities, such as through a cohort model, mentoring, one-on-one coaching, networking to build a professional community, and applied learning opportunities, such as problem-solving related to the needs of individual children.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

Priority 5: Improving Engagement between Schools and Families.

Projects designed to develop the capacity of administrators and educators to develop systems and use strategies that build trust and engagement with families, while further strengthening the role families play in their child's development and learning. Projects must—

(a) Provide training and coaching to assist administrators to—

(1) Develop and implement policies and programs that recognize families' funds of knowledge, connect family engagement to student learning, and create welcoming, inviting cultures; and

(2) Create systems that support staff and families in meaningful engagement ( i.e., Leading by Convening and the Dual-Capacity Framework. For more information visit www.dualcapcity.org and www.ncsi.wested.org/resources/leading-by-convening );

(b) Provide training and coaching to assist educators and early intervention providers to—

(1) Build their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, aspirations, and behaviors about effective strategies to engage families in their child's learning;

(2) Work with families to make collaborative, data-based decisions in the development and implementation of the child's IEP; and

(3) Provide information and resources to families that enable them to support their children's learning and behavior at home; and

(c) Provide training and coaching to families so they can—

(1) Meaningfully participate in the development and implementation of their child's IEP;

(2) Participate in data-based decision making related to their child's education; and

(3) Further their child's learning at home.

In their applications, States must describe how their projects will meet these program requirements. In addition to these requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under Common Requirements.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following final requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

In addition to the requirements contained in these priorities, to be considered for funding, applicants must meet the following application and administrative requirements:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Align with and integrate other State initiatives and programs, as well as district and local improvement plans, to leverage existing professional development and data systems;

(2) Develop and implement plans to sustain the grant program after the grant funding has ended; and

(3) Integrate family engagement into all project efforts by supporting capacity building for personnel and families.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Develop the knowledge and ability of personnel to be culturally responsive and engage children and families with a strengths-based approach;

(ii) Engage students, families, and community members to assess the appropriateness and impact of the intervention, program, or strategies; and

(iii) Review program procedures and resources to ensure a diversity of perspectives are brought into the project; and

(2) Achieve the project's goals and objectives. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Either a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or theory of action (to be provided in appendix A), which demonstrates how the proposed project will achieve intended measurable outcomes;

(ii) A description of proposed in-State and national partners that the project will work with to achieve the goals and objectives of the grant and how the impact of these partnerships will be measured; and

(iii) A description of how the project will be based on current research and make use of evidence-based (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(A) The current research base for the chosen interventions;

(B) The evidence-based model or practices to be used in the project's professional development activities; and

(C) How implementation science will be used to support full and sustained use of evidence-based practices and result in sustained systems of implementation support.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party  2 evaluator. The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model or theory of action required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of these requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model or theory of action and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the annual performance report to the Department; and

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits and funds will be spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how the proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(1) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable;

(2) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(3) How key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes; and

(4) How the proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Provide an assurance that any project website will include relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility;

(3) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) An annual one and one-half day SPDG National Meeting in the Washington, DC area during each year of the project period; and

(ii) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period, provided that, if the conference is conducted virtually, the project must reallocate unused travel funds no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period; and

(4) Budget $6,000 annually for support of the SPDG program network and website currently administered by the University of Oregon ( www.signetwork.org ).

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 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 the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these final priorities and requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The Department believes that the costs associated with the final priorities and requirements will be minimal, while the potential benefits are significant. The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The benefits of implementing the program will outweigh the costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with the application will be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation will not be burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.

The final priorities, including requirements, contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the final priorities, including requirements, do not affect the currently approved data collection.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000. Participation in the SPDG program is voluntary. In addition, the only eligible entities for this program are SEAs, which do not meet the definition of a small entity. For these reasons, the final priorities and requirements will not impose any additional burden on small entities.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the Secretary authority to reserve not more than one-half of one percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B for each fiscal year to provide TA activities, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under Parts B and C of IDEA. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set-aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. Section 616(i) of IDEA requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, analyzed, and accurately reported to the Secretary. It also requires the Secretary to provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the data collection requirements, which include the data collection and reporting requirements in sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. In addition, the Secretary may use funds reserved under section 611(c) of IDEA to “administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under parts B and C of the IDEA.” Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).

Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.373Y.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), 1418(c), 1418(d), 1442; Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-47, Division D, Title III, 138 Stat. 460, 685 (2024).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

We published a notice of proposed priority and requirements (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on March 4, 2024 (89 FR 15525). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the priority and requirements.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, nine parties submitted comments addressing the priority and requirements.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority and requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority and requirements since publication of the NPP follows. We received comments on a number of specific topics, including funding and topics for TA. Each topic is addressed below.

Comments: Multiple commenters specifically expressed support for the proposed center and the proposed objectives.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with the commenters that the Center funded under this program will provide necessary and valuable TA under the IDEA to States.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter proposed a shift towards a more participatory approach to data collection under the IDEA, an approach that would consider the voices and experiences of diverse stakeholders.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's suggestion and shares their interest in obtaining broad and diverse input regarding the IDEA data collection process. Ultimately, the Department is required to collect these data under section 618 of IDEA. Thus, the participatory data collection methods that the commenter suggested, such as community forums, focus groups, and surveys designed to capture the perspectives and needs of diverse stakeholders, may be helpful as State educational agencies (SEAs) implement their IDEA data collection responsibilities, but are not applicable at this time when the Department's data collection is defined by the IDEA statute.

Changes: None.

Comments: In response to the Department's request for comment on whether it should utilize a phased-in approach for funding this Center, such that the award amount for the initial years of the project would be lower than the later years, the majority of commenters expressed concerns. Commenters specifically noted concerns about the funding level given the turnover and shortages on data staff faced by SEAs and need for the TA the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) data centers provide to new data staff, as well as the impact decreased TA would have on data quality.

Discussion: The Department agrees that SEAs are facing significant issues related to shortages and turnover of their data staff. The Department also agrees that a substantial decrease in funding for TA could impact data quality. For this reason, the Department intends to limit any phased-in funding, with smaller awards in the initial years of the project and higher awards in later years (to the extent appropriations under IDEA by Congress permit this flexibility) and still maintain the proposed outcomes and activities.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter recommended including specific reference to artificial intelligence (AI) within the administrative requirements, as it is an increasingly important technology in this field.

Discussion: While we appreciate the commenter's interest in, and support of, AI for the data collection, reporting, and use of IDEA section 618 data, the Department will consider whether and how AI should be incorporated into the TA on data collection when the Department develops the cooperative agreement and during the implementation of the grant.

Changes: None.

Comments: One commenter proposed adding specific outcomes that support data integration efforts across State agencies and federally funded pre-kindergarten through age 21 education programs that would improve States' capacity to use data for programming decisions.

Discussion: The Department appreciates and agrees with the need to support and increase data integration across State agencies. The Department funds the Center on the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID) to specifically support States on how to integrate and better use their Federal data, with a specific focus on the IDEA data (ALN 84.373M). Under the requirements within the priority, applicants must describe how they would collaborate and coordinate with other Department-funded TA investments, such as CIID, to align their work to better meet the purposes of the Center. In order to decrease confusion in the field and the potential overlap of this TA center and CIID, the Department declines to add an additional outcome related to State-level data integration.

Changes: None.

National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data.

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish and operate the National Technical Assistance Center to Improve State Capacity to Collect, Report, Analyze, and Use Accurate IDEA Part B Data (Data Center).

The Data Center will provide TA to help States better meet current and future IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements, improve data quality, and analyze and use section 616, section 618, and other IDEA data ( e.g., State Supplemental Survey-IDEA) to identify and address programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.

The Data Center will provide TA to help States to (1) effectively and efficiently respond to all IDEA-related data submission requirements; (2) improve the analyses of IDEA data to the extent these analyses respond to critical policy questions that will facilitate program improvement and compliance accountability; and (3) comply with applicable privacy requirements, including the privacy and confidentiality requirements under IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and its regulations at 34 CFR part 99. 1

This Data Center will focus on providing TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data on children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. However, the Data Center will not provide TA on Part B data required under section 616 of IDEA for Indicators B7 (Preschool Outcomes) and B12 (Early Childhood Transition); TA on collecting, reporting, analyzing, and using Part B data associated with children with disabilities ages 3 through 5 for these indicators will be provided by the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Data Systems, ALN 84.373Z.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Improved State data infrastructure by coordinating and promoting communication and effective data governance strategies among relevant State offices, including State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve the quality of IDEA data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA;

(b) Increased capacity of States to submit accurate and timely data, to enhance current State validation procedures, and to prevent future errors in State-reported IDEA Part B data;

(c) Improved capacity of States to meet the data collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by addressing personnel training needs, developing effective tools ( e.g., training modules) and resources ( e.g., documentation of State data processes), and providing in-person and virtual opportunities for cross-State collaboration about data collection and reporting requirements that States can use to train personnel in schools, programs, agencies, and districts;

(d) Improved capacity of SEAs, and LEAs in collaboration with SEAs, to collect, report, analyze, and use both SEA and LEA IDEA data to identify programmatic strengths and areas for improvement, address root causes of poor performance towards outcomes, and evaluate progress towards outcomes;

(e) Improved IDEA data validation by using results from data reviews conducted by the Department to work with States to generate tools that can be used by States to lead to improvements in the validity and reliability of data required by IDEA and enable States to communicate accurate data to local consumers ( e.g., parents and families, school boards, the general public); and

(f) Increased capacity of States to collect, report, analyze, and use high-quality IDEA Part B data.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities or requirements, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority and these requirements, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register .

The Assistant Secretary establishes the following requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

Applicants must—

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Address the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and to increase their capacity to analyze and use section 616 and section 618 data as both a means of improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives about IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and knowledge of State and local data collection systems, as appropriate;

(ii) Present applicable national, State, and local data to demonstrate the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement; and

(iii) Describe how SEAs and LEAs are currently meeting IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and use section 616 and section 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the intended recipients of the grant;

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes, which depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

Note: The following websites provide more information on logic models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices (EBPs). 2 To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on the capacity of SEAs and LEAs to report and use data, specifically section 616 and section 618 data, as both a means of improving data quality and identifying strengths and areas for improvement; and

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify and develop the knowledge base on the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements and SEA and LEA analysis and use of sections 616 and 618 data as a means of both improving data quality and identifying programmatic strengths and areas for improvement;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 3 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 4 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 5 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA levels;

(C) Its proposed approach to prioritizing TA recipients with a primary focus on meeting the needs of States with known ongoing data quality issues, as measured by the Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) review of the quality of the IDEA sections 616 and 618 data;

(D) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems related to the IDEA Part B data collection and reporting requirements that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;

(E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the capacity needs of SEAs and LEAs to meet Part B data collection and reporting requirements under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and

(F) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with Department-funded TA investments ( e.g., the Center funded under 84.373Z, the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting, the Center for the Integration of IDEA Data, the Data Center to Address Significant Disproportionality, and the Weiss Center) and Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics research and development investments, where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this priority; and

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party evaluator. 6 The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these application and administrative requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the annual performance report and at the end of Year 2 for the review process; and

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a third-party evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits, and funds will be spent in a way that increases their efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including by reducing waste or achieving better outcomes.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the management plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, easily accessible, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements:

(1) Include, in appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period; and

(iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(4) Provide an assurance that it will maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;

(5) Include, in appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to this new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate; and

(6) Budget at least 50 percent of the grant award for providing targeted and intensive TA to States.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles stated in the Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 14094). Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 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 the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing the final priority and requirements only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify the costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this program is voluntary. While this action does impose some requirements on participating grantees that are cost-bearing, the Department expects that applicants for this program will include in their proposed budgets a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.

The Department believes that the benefits to the Federal Government outweigh the costs associated with this action.

The Department believes that the priority and requirements are needed to administer the program effectively.

The final priority, including requirements, contains information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the final priority, including requirements, does not affect the currently approved data collection.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect are LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by this final priority, including requirements, will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this final priority will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.

Participation in the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority and requirements impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program grant. An eligible entity will most likely apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.

We believe that the final priority and requirements will not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence of this final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application will likely be the same.

This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it will be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

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

On December 20, 2023 (88 FR 87981) (“proposed rule”), the EPA proposed to approve a SIP revision concerning an amendment to the California Smog Check program to include a contingency measure to address in part the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for certain nonattainment areas in California. This contingency measure, if triggered, would narrow the existing Smog Check inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles in certain California nonattainment areas. The SIP revision is titled “California Smog Check Contingency Measure State Implementation Plan Revision” (Released: September 15, 2023) (“Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP”). The Smog Check Contingency Measure itself is presented in Section 4 of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP. Other sections of the submission address the contingency measure requirements, discuss the opportunities for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt contingency measures, provide the background on the California Smog Check program, and present the emission reductions estimates for the ten California nonattainment areas for which the Smog Check Contingency Measure was developed. The appendices included with the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP include an infeasibility analysis, documentation of emissions estimates, and California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), effective October 10, 2017.

In Table 1, we list the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and the related statutory provision with the dates they were adopted and submitted by CARB.

In our December 20, 2023 proposed rule, we provided a discussion of the regulatory background leading to CARB's adoption and submission of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP. In short, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to address, in part, the contingency measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 for certain nonattainment areas with respect to certain ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

The applicable nonattainment areas and NAAQS are Coachella Valley (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), Eastern Kern County (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), Mariposa County (2015 ozone NAAQS), Sacramento Metro Area (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), San Diego County (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS), San Joaquin Valley (1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone NAAQS; 1997 annual, 2006 24-hour, and 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS), South Coast Air Basin (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS; 2012 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS), Ventura County (2015 ozone NAAQS), Western Mojave Desert (2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS) and Western Nevada County (2015 ozone NAAQS). 1

In our proposed rule, we explained that, under the current California Smog Check program, certain vehicles are exempt from the biennial inspection requirement, including vehicles eight or fewer model years old. The Smog Check Contingency Measure, if triggered, will reduce this exemption to vehicles seven or fewer model years old in the nonattainment area(s) at issue upon the first triggering event and to vehicles six or fewer model years old in the nonattainment area(s) at issue upon a second triggering event. Reducing the inspection exemption will increase the number of inspected and repaired vehicles and therefore result in additional emission reductions. 2

Under the Smog Check Contingency Measure, within 30 days of the EPA's determination that a nonattainment area covered by the measure has failed to meet a reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone, meet a qualitative milestone, submit a required quantitative milestone report or milestone compliance demonstration, or attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, CARB will be obligated to transmit a letter to the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). CARB's letter will include the necessary finding that providing an exemption from Smog Check for certain vehicles in the area(s) (defined by specified ZIP Codes) at issue will prohibit the State from meeting the State's commitments with respect to the SIP required by the CAA, effectuating a reduction in the Smog Check vehicle inspection exemption to begin with the new calendar year. 3

Upon receipt of the CARB letter and the applicable ZIP Codes, CARB, BAR and DMV staff will begin implementation of the change in exemption length to Smog Check and take the following actions:  4

• DMV will update their Smog Check renewal programing to require a Smog Check inspection for the eight model years old vehicles (or seven model years old vehicles in the case of a second trigger) in the ZIP Codes provided by CARB staff;

• The eight to seven model years old (or seven to six model years old) exemption change will begin for registrations expiring beginning January 1st of the applicable year, considering the time it takes for DMV to program this change and their registration renewal process;

• 60 days before the expiration date of the vehicle registration, DMV will send out registration renewals that include these newly impacted vehicles along with those already subject to Smog Check inspection;

• The notice will include information on the change in exemptions, reason for change, and resources for obtaining a Smog Check inspection from a certified station;

• CARB staff will work with DMV to develop and include an informational paper that will accompany the registration renewal with the information as included in the notice; and

• BAR and DMV will administer and enforce the new changes to the Smog Check Program.

In our December 20, 2023 proposed rule, we provided our evaluation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and our rationale for proposing approval. 5 In short, we found that CARB had met the procedural requirements for SIPs and SIP revisions, found that CARB had adequate legal authority to implement the Smog Check Contingency Measure, and found that the applicable State agencies would have adequate personnel and funding for carrying out the Smog Check Contingency Measure. We also explained how the Smog Check Contingency Measure would be enforceable as required under CAA section 110(a)(2), how the Smog Check Contingency Measure would meet the requirements for an individual contingency measure under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, and how approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure would not interfere with RFP, attainment, or any other applicable requirement of the Act consistent with the requirements under CAA section 110(l). In addition, we presented CARB's estimates of the expected emissions reductions from implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the various nonattainment areas for the relevant NAAQS for which the measure was developed. We indicated that, based on our review, we found the estimates to be reasonable and adequately documented.

Last, we explained that we were proposing to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure for the various applicable nonattainment areas and NAAQS, but we were not proposing to make any determination as to whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP would be sufficient by itself for CARB and the relevant air districts to fully comply with the contingency measure SIP requirements in any specific nonattainment area for any specific NAAQS under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We indicated in our proposed rule that we will be evaluating the contingency measure SIP plan elements for compliance with the full SIP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 in the relevant future actions on nonattainment plan SIP submissions for each respective nonattainment area. In these separate actions, we will evaluate the estimated emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure, in conjunction with the estimated emission reductions from any other submitted contingency measures for each area and each NAAQS at issue, to determine whether the contingency measures, taken together, provide the requisite emissions reductions or otherwise meet the contingency measure requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014, as applicable.

Our December 20, 2023 proposed rule contains more information on the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and our rationale for proposing approval.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from CARB, 6 comments from a group comprised of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, Committee for a Better Arvin, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Healthy Environment for All Lives (collectively referred to in this document as “Valley EJ Organizations”)  7 and comments from a group comprised of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, National Park Conservation Association, Little Manila Rising and Valley Improvement Projects (collectively referred to in this document as “CVAQ”). 8 All the comment letters and exhibits can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. In the following paragraphs, we summarize the comments and provide our responses.

CARB Comment #1: CARB indicates that, in the proposed rule, the EPA erroneously indicates that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the estimated emissions reductions within roughly a year of the triggering event. CARB clarifies that instead, the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve emissions reductions as soon as possible within a two-year time frame after the triggering event, recognizing that changes in Smog Check exemptions would begin at the start of a calendar year, that the California DMV will require time to update their systems and notify vehicle owners impacted by the measure, and that triggering events are dependent on the effective date of the EPA action. The California DMV's vehicle registration renewal program cycles annually beginning on January 1st of each year. Thus, CARB explains that, depending upon when the Smog Check Contingency Measure is triggered, when the DMV completes the related systems' update and provides notification to affected vehicle owners, and the length of time left until the beginning of the next calendar year, it could take more than one year to achieve the associated emissions reductions, but that these reductions should occur within two years from an applicable triggering event. CARB believes that this timeline for achieving reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure is consistent with the EPA's draft contingency measure guidance concerning the timing of emissions reductions from contingency measures.

EPA Response to CARB Comment #1: The EPA appreciates CARB's clarification of the timeline for when emissions reductions from the measure would be achieved (once triggered). While the timeline for achieving emissions reductions is potentially longer than we described in our proposed rule, we do not find the more extended timeline to present an obstacle to approval of the contingency measure because the reductions occur within two years and CARB's explanation is reasonable as to why the reductions cannot occur within the first year.

Based on CARB's explanation, we now more fully understand that the California DMV's vehicle registration renewal program cycles annually beginning on January 1st of each year, and thus, if the contingency measure triggering event ( e.g., finding of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date) occurs late in the calendar year, DMV will not have time to update its Smog Check renewal programming in the ZIP Codes provided by CARB in time for the registration renewals to be available for mailing to vehicle owners who must renew their registrations in January. If there is insufficient time, then DMV's update to the Smog Check renewal programming will not be reflected in vehicle registration renewal notices until the following January 1st. The EPA understands that as a result of the existing vehicle registration cycle, the full anticipated emission reductions would take longer to achieve, but this is reasonable given the nature of the measure.

In March 2023, the EPA published notice of availability of a new draft guidance addressing the contingency measure SIP requirements in section 172(c)(9) for nonattainment areas generally and in CAA section 182(c)(9) for ozone nonattainment areas classified Serious and higher. This document is entitled “Draft: Guidance on the Preparation of State Implementation Plan Provisions that Address the Nonattainment Area Contingency Measure Requirements for Ozone and Particulate Matter (DRAFT— 3/17/23—Public Review Version)” (referred to in this document as the “Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance”). The EPA provided an opportunity for public comment. 9 The principal differences between the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance and existing guidance on contingency measures relate to the EPA's recommendations concerning the specific amount of emission reductions that implementation of contingency measures should achieve and the timing for when the emissions reductions from the contingency measures should occur.

With respect to the time period within which reductions from contingency measures should occur, the EPA previously recommended that contingency measures take effect within 60 days of a triggering event, and that the resulting emission reductions generally occur within one year of the triggering event. Under the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, in instances where there are insufficient contingency measures available to achieve the recommended amount of emissions reductions within one year of the triggering event, the EPA believes that contingency measures that provide reductions within two years of the triggering event would be appropriate to consider toward achieving the recommended amount of emissions reductions. We think that contingency measures that result in additional emissions reductions during the second year following the triggering event, as contemplated by the Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance, would still serve the important purpose of contingency measures to continue progress towards attainment, as the State develops and submits, and the EPA acts on, a SIP submission to address the underlying deficiency. 10

As discussed in our Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance document, we believe that reductions from contingency measures should be achieved as soon as possible. If an air agency elects to adopt contingency measures that will require more than one year from the triggering event to achieve the full amount of necessary reductions, then it should provide an adequate explanation of why the reductions could not be achieved within the first year and how much additional time is needed (up to one additional year). 11 We find that CARB's clarification of the timeline for achieving full emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure (summarized in CARB Comment #1) adequately explains why the reductions may not be fully achieved until the second year after the triggering event.

CARB Comment #2: CARB disagrees with the EPA's presentation in Table 2 of the proposed rule of the emissions reductions estimates for the Smog Check Contingency Measure in the applicable nonattainment areas for the relevant NAAQS. Specifically, CARB contends that the EPA should not have discounted the emissions reductions calculated for implementation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure by the potentially foregone emissions reductions calculated from the reduction in Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (“Carl Moyer Program”)  12 funding due to decreased funding from the Smog Check abatement fee that would result from the narrowing of the Smog Check inspection exemption for newer model year vehicles. 13 CARB asserts that the estimated potential loss in reductions from the foregone Carl Moyer Program funding should not be factored into the estimated reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure.

CARB explains that the estimated emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure are calculated from CARB's current baseline SIP emissions inventory, while potential reductions from anticipated future projects funded through the Carl Moyer Program are not accounted for in baseline SIP inventories. Although the Smog Check Contingency Measure's impact on funding for the Carl Moyer Program is described as a potential emissions disbenefit, CARB indicates that the information was included only to better inform the public of potential impacts and should not be accounted for in the calculated emissions reductions for the Smog Check Contingency Measure. CARB contends that the emissions reductions listed in the table titled “Potential Reductions from Measure” for each nonattainment area in Section 5 of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP are the correct estimates for the Smog Check Contingency Measure.

EPA Response to CARB Comment #2: We do not agree that the overall estimate of emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure should not take into account reasonably foreseeable emissions consequences. However, upon reconsideration, we agree with CARB that the foregone emissions reductions calculated by CARB resulting from reduced Carl Moyer Program funding should not be taken into account when evaluating the emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure because the timing of the reduced funding and its impact on emissions reductions would not occur during the two-year implementation period for the Smog Check Contingency Measure. 14

The reduced funding that would follow the triggering of the contingency measure would potentially affect emissions-reducing projects three or more years following the triggering event, based on the typical timeline for issuing grants and implementing emissions-reducing projects using Carl Moyer Program funding. This conclusion is based on information on implementation of the Carl Moyer Program provided by CARB. 15

We, therefore, have re-published Table 2 from the proposed rule without accounting for the predicted emissions impacts from corresponding reductions in funds paid into the Carl Moyer Program, and find the amounts in Table 2 to be reasonable estimates of the emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure for the applicable nonattainment areas and relevant NAAQS.

Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1: Citing 40 CFR 52.220(c)(396)(ii)(A)(2)(i), Valley EJ Organizations assert that CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to comply with a Court order and the approved SIP, which require CARB to adopt and submit contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Act. 16 Valley EJ Organizations contend, however, that the EPA has proposed approval of the Smog Check Revision without deciding whether the emissions reductions the Smog Check Contingency Measure achieves comply with either the EPA's current interpretation of the Act with respect to contingency measures or the EPA's proposed Draft Revised Contingency Measure Guidance. Valley EJ Organizations further assert that the EPA fails to acknowledge or explain why it proposes to defer action for contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley when the EPA has already approved the 2007 Ozone Plan, including contingency measures, and has approved the commitment by CARB to adopt and submit the contingency measures. 17

EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1: The EPA agrees that CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for several purposes. First, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to address, in part, the contingency measure SIP requirements for certain nonattainment areas for certain NAAQS. The relevant areas and NAAQS that CARB addressed in the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP include 10 nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, seven areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, two areas for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS, one area for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and one area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 18 The San Joaquin Valley is the one nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to which the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP applies.

Second, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to respond to recent court actions to meet statutory deadlines related to contingency measures. 19 In connection with one of the recent court actions, CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to respond to a Court order  20 compelling CARB to fulfill CARB's commitment to develop, adopt and submit attainment contingency measures  21 meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) that the EPA approved in connection with the approval of the San Joaquin Valley ozone attainment plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 22 In this final action, we are not determining whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP fulfills CARB's commitment, but we are approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, among other areas and other NAAQS.

In our proposed rule, we acknowledged that we are not, in this action, making a determination as to whether the State and relevant District have fully met the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) in any given area, but rather, we explained that we are taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure for the various nonattainment areas and NAAQS to which the SIP applies. 23 We indicated that we will be acting on the full contingency measure SIP plan elements in the relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure in conjunction with the reductions from other submitted contingency measures, at that time. 24 An example of such a separate rulemaking is our recent proposed approval of the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 contingency measure SIP element in which we are proposing to approve the components that comprise the contingency measure plan, collectively, as meeting the requirements for contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley for the various PM 2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. 25 As part of our evaluation and proposed approval, we are taking into account the emissions reductions presented in the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 26

We have taken this approach of acting on the Smog Check Contingency Measure as an individual contingency measure separately from acting on the contingency measure element for each given nonattainment area, consistent with CARB's conceptual design for the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, which anticipates that the Smog Check Contingency Measure would, if triggered, change the exemptions for motor vehicles under the California Smog Check Program for the relevant local nonattainment area and NAAQS, and that, together with the local air districts' contingency measures, address the contingency measure requirements of the Act. 27 In future actions, we will evaluate whether CARB and the relevant District have addressed the full contingency measure SIP element requirements of the CAA by considering the emissions reductions attributed to the Smog Check Contingency Measure taken together with each local air districts' additional submitted contingency measures, along with any infeasibility justifications that may also be submitted.

Our evaluation of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as an individual contingency measure included a review of the Smog Check Contingency Measure itself for compliance with the requirements for individual contingency measures as set forth in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. In short, we found that that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to be both prospective and conditional, that the Smog Check Contingency Measure includes an appropriate triggering mechanism, that the narrowing of the exemption for newer vehicles from Smog Check inspections is not required for any other CAA purpose, that the emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure are not included in any RFP or attainment demonstration in any of the applicable nonattainment areas, that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is structured so as to be implemented in a timely manner without significant further action by the State or EPA and that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the estimated emissions reductions within roughly a year of the triggering event. 28

As summarized in CARB Comment #1, CARB has explained why the Smog Check Contingency Measure is designed to achieve the estimated emissions reductions within two years of the triggering event, but not necessarily within a year of the triggering event. As discussed in EPA Response to CARB Comment #1, we find CARB's explanation to be adequate and that the timeline for achieving the emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure to be acceptable for the purposes of CAA section 172(c)(9). For these reasons, we find that the Smog Check Contingency Measure meets the requirements for individual contingency measures.

With one exception, we expect the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to be supplemented by additional SIP revisions that, considered together, will be evaluated for compliance with the contingency measure SIP element requirement for each nonattainment area and NAAQS to which the Smog Check Contingency Measure applies. The one exception is the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

We acknowledge that, in the proposed rule, we did not include a specific discussion of the implications of our proposed action with respect to the contingency measure SIP planning requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the San Joaquin Valley. Unlike the other nonattainment areas, we also acknowledge that, as the EJ Valley Organizations assert, the EPA has already taken action on the contingency measure element for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 29 We approved the contingency measure element, in part, in reliance on CARB's commitment to adopt and submit contingency measures to comply with the contingency measure SIP requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) as those requirements relate to a potential failure to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. 30 CARB submitted the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to, among other reasons, fulfill the commitment made by CARB in connection with the EPA's approval of the San Joaquin Valley plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

In this action, we are approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a contingency measure for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, along with the other areas and NAAQS. But, we will be taking separate action on the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP to evaluate whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP fulfills the attainment-related contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The CAA establishes a deadline for EPA action on SIP submissions of 12 months from the determination of completeness. 31 We issued our completeness determination for the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP in our December 20, 2023 proposed rule. 32

Valley EJ Organizations Comment #2: Valley EJ Organizations assert that the EPA fails to decide whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP complies with the existing SIP and the CAA with respect to the amount of emissions reductions achieved for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Citing CAA section 172(c)(9), the Valley EJ Organizations contend that this violates the plain meaning of the Act's contingency measures provision and is arbitrary and capricious because contingency measures must be fully adopted, ready for implementation, and included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator. The Valley EJ Organizations also contend that the EPA must act on the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP so that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is part of the plan, no further action by the EPA is pending, and the measure is ready for implementation upon a failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, i.e., June 15, 2024. The Valley EJ Organizations assert that, without EPA action to determine that the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP meets the requirements for contingency measures for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Smog Check Contingency Measure will not be part of the SIP, not ready to take effect without further action by the EPA, and not federally enforceable.

EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #2: As discussed in more detail in EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1, the EPA is taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure that meets the applicable requirements for a contingency measure. As noted by the Valley EJ Organizations, the EPA is not, in this action, determining whether the San Joaquin Valley has met the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, this does not mean that the Smog Check Contingency Measure itself will not be approved as part of the California SIP or federally enforceable.

Upon the effective date of our final action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP, the Smog Check Contingency Measure will be federally enforceable as a part of the approved California SIP. This means that the Smog Check Contingency Measure will be triggered in San Joaquin Valley if the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2024, applicable attainment date.

Our finding in this regard is based on the language in CARB Resolution 23-20, adopting the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a revision to the California SIP, conditioned upon the EPA's final approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a contingency measure under the CAA. 33 In our action today, we are approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure as a contingency measure under the CAA for the various nonattainment areas and NAAQS addressed by the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP.

Valley EJ Organizations Comment #3: Valley EJ Organizations object to the EPA's proposed approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion because the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are far below the magnitude of emissions reductions that Valley EJ Organizations assert are required for San Joaquin Valley to meet the contingency measures SIP requirement under the CAA. Valley EJ Organizations also object to the proposed approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP on the grounds that approval of the contingency measure with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS would violate the anti-backsliding bar in CAA section 110(l) by weakening the amount of reductions required by the commitment CARB made, and EPA approved, as part of the San Joaquin Valley SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. According to Valley EJ Organizations, the commitment that CARB made in connection with the EPA's approval of the San Joaquin Valley ozone SIP can only be achieved through contingency measures that would achieve collectively one year's worth of RFP, the EPA's interpretation (at the time of the EPA's approval of the commitment) of the amount of emissions reductions contingency measures should achieve to meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures for a given nonattainment area. Under this premise, Valley EJ Organizations contend that approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure, which would reduce emissions (if triggered) by far less than one year's worth of RFP would be prohibited under CAA section 110(l). In the alternative, Valley EJ Organizations assert that the EPA has unlawfully and arbitrarily failed to consider and make a finding with respect to whether the approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard constitutes illegal backsliding.

EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #3: As discussed in more detail in EPA Response to Valley EJ Organizations Comment #1, the EPA is taking action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure that meets the applicable requirements for individual contingency measures. The EPA is not, in this action, determining whether the San Joaquin Valley has fully met the contingency measure requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Thus, the EPA has not yet determined whether the emissions reductions from the Smog Check Contingency Measure suffice, on its own, to meet the contingency measure requirements for the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We will be taking another separate action on the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and will evaluate the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure, as well as CARB's infeasibility justification for adopting the Smog Check Contingency Measure as the sole contingency measure for San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, at that time.

Lastly, in our proposed rule, we did review the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP for compliance with CAA section 110(l). 34 In short, and in light of the scope of this rulemaking, i.e., to evaluate the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as providing an individual contingency measure, we found that the Smog Check Contingency Measure, if triggered, would result in additional emissions reductions beyond those included in the RFP and attainment demonstration for the applicable nonattainment areas. Thus, we proposed to find that the approval of the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP itself is consistent with CAA section 110(l) and would not interfere with RFP, attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 35 We are finalizing that finding in this final action.

CVAQ Comment #1: CVAQ asserts that the EPA has no authority to approve contingency measures that provide less than one year's worth of RFP and has no authority to adopt a feasibility-based exemption that conditions contingency measures on their technological or economic infeasibility for polluters. CVAQ states that San Joaquin Valley residents need measures that will result in significant reductions that put health at the forefront, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure would only reduce around 0.1 tpd of NO X or less in the San Joaquin Valley. This is, according to CVAQ, especially problematic for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which the San Joaquin Valley will fail to attain in six months, and the Smog Check Contingency Measure is the only contingency measure California has adopted for that NAAQS. CVAQ asserts that the EPA's interpretation of the contingency measure requirements only benefits industry to the detriment of some of the nation's most impacted communities, and that the EPA's actions run counter to the Biden Administration's commitment to environmental justice and Civil Rights.

EPA Response to CVAQ Comment #1: In this rulemaking, the EPA is approving the Smog Check Contingency Measure as an individual contingency measure because the measure has the necessary attributes of a CAA contingency measure, 36 but the EPA is not making any determination in this action as to whether the Smog Check Contingency Measure alone is sufficient to meet fully the contingency measure SIP requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014 in any particular nonattainment area for any particular NAAQS. As noted in our proposed rule, we will be acting on the contingency measure SIP plan elements in the relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure at that time. 37 In future actions on area-specific contingency measure elements, the EPA will take into account the amount of emissions reductions from the contingency measures for a given area and evaluate the approvability of the contingency measure element as a whole, including any relevant justifications for a contingency measure or measures that does not, or do not, provide for the recommended amount of emissions reductions.

CVAQ Comment #2: CVAQ contends that the Smog Check Contingency Measure would impose the burden of compliance costs on San Joaquin Valley residents who fall under the highest socioeconomic disadvantages in the State, further contradicting the Biden Administration's commitment to environmental justice and Civil Rights. CVAQ also contends that adopting the proposed weak contingency measure goes against this commitment by refusing to hold the region's largest polluters accountable, discounting community priorities and continuing racist polluting practices.

EPA Response to CVAQ Comment #2: The burden for compliance with the Smog Check Contingency Measure would fall on owners of motor vehicles seven or eight model years old. Using DMV vehicle registration data, CARB staff found that, in all the subject nonattainment areas, the proportion of vehicle owners potentially impacted in Disadvantaged Communities (DACs)  38 by the Smog Check Contingency Measure, if triggered, is about equal to the proportion of vehicle owners potentially impacted in the nonattainment area as a whole. 39 According to CARB's findings, the burden of compliance and the environmental benefits of the Smog Check Contingency Measure will not disproportionately impact DACs in the nonattainment areas.

As part of CARB's evaluation of the impacts of the Smog Check Contingency Measure, CARB noted that repair costs under the Smog Check program vary, but generally cost $750 on average, which could be a significant cost burden. 40 However, CARB also noted that financial assistance for repairs is available for income-eligible vehicle owners through BAR's Consumer Assistance Program, which provides up to $1,200 for repair costs. 41 To be eligible for financial assistance, a vehicle owner must have a gross household income less than or equal to 225% of the Federal poverty level. This financial assistance program should help to address CVAQ's concern about the burden of compliance costs for those eligible households.

This document takes final action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP that CARB submitted to address, in part, contingency measure SIP requirements for certain nonattainment areas in California for the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. Information on ozone and PM 2.5 and their relationship to negative health impacts can be found on the EPA's website.

Environmental justice (EJ) is 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. As explained in the EJ Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice 2022 document, 42 the CAA provides States with the discretion to consider environmental justice in developing rules and measures related to nonattainment area SIP requirements, including contingency measures.

In this instance, CARB exercised this discretion and evaluated environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submission. 43 CARB analyzed whether there would be disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities within the affected nonattainment areas if the contingency measure were triggered and analyzed the impacts of the contingency measure on vehicle owners in disadvantaged communities. 44 Based on the results of these analyses, CARB concluded that the Smog Check Contingency Measure is consistent with CARB's environmental justice policies and would not disproportionately impact people of any race, culture, income, or national origin. 45

In reviewing CARB's analysis, the EPA defers to CARB's reasonable exercise of its discretion in considering EJ in this way. The EPA is taking final action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP because it meets minimum requirements pursuant to the CAA and relevant implementing regulations. The EPA also finds that consideration of EJ analyses in this context is reasonable. The EPA encourages air agencies generally to evaluate environmental justice considerations of their actions and carefully consider impacts to communities. The EJ analyses submitted by CARB were considered but were not the basis for the EPA's decision to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP as meeting the minimum applicable requirements.

Pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons provided in our December 20, 2023 proposed rule and in the responses to comments provided in this document, the EPA is taking final action to approve the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP and a related statutory provision ( i.e., California H&SC section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), operative October 10, 2017). Our action is based on our finding that the Smog Check Contingency Measure SIP meets the applicable procedural and substantive CAA requirements for SIP revisions; that the Smog Check Contingency Measure itself meets applicable requirements for a valid contingency measure under the CAA and the EPA's implementation regulations; and that the Smog Check Contingency Measure would achieve additional emissions reductions of NO X and VOC, if triggered by certain EPA determinations, in Coachella Valley, Eastern Kern County, Mariposa County, Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Ventura County, West Mojave Desert, and Western Nevada County.

We are not making any determination presently as to whether this individual contingency measure is sufficient by itself for CARB and the relevant air district to fully comply with the contingency measure requirements in any specific nonattainment area or specific NAAQS under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1014. We will be acting on the contingency measure SIP plan elements in the relevant nonattainment plan SIP submissions for the respective areas and NAAQS in separate rulemakings and will consider the emissions reductions associated with the Smog Check Contingency Measure at that time. This final action adds the Smog Check Contingency Measure and the related statutory provision to the federally enforceable California SIP.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of California Health & Safety Code section 44011(a)(4)(A) and (B), which authorizes CARB to narrow the newer model vehicle Smog Check inspection exemption. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX 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 EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 46

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves a State measure 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), 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this action 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).

Furthermore, 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. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

CARB evaluated environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submission given that the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA reviewed and considered the air agency's evaluation of environmental justice considerations of this action, as is described in Section III (“Environmental Justice Considerations”) of this document, as part of the EPA's review. 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 areas. 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.

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

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 September 9, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2)).

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

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

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA designated the Milwaukee-Racine area as a PM 2.5 nonattainment area due to measured violations of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. On June 8, 2012, and later supplemented on May 30, 2013, WDNR submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area to attainment. The submission included a plan to provide for maintenance of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area through 2024. EPA redesignated the Milwaukee-Racine area on April 22, 2014 (79 FR 22415), and approved the associated maintenance plan into the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of WDNR's April 8, 2022, LMP submission is to fulfill the second 10-year planning requirement of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) to ensure PM 2.5 NAAQS compliance through 2034.

On March 19, 2024 (89 FR 19519), EPA proposed to approve the second 10-year PM 2.5 LMP for the Milwaukee-Racine maintenance area addressing the 2006 PM 2.5 maintenance area. EPA's approval of the LMP will satisfy CAA section 175A requirements for the second 10-year period for the Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM 2.5 maintenance area through 2034. Further explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking (89 FR 19519) and will not be restated here. The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on April 18, 2024. EPA received no comments on the proposal and is finalizing our action as proposed.

EPA is approving the second 10-year PM 2.5 LMP for the Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM 2.5 maintenance area submitted by WDNR. EPA's review of the air quality data for the maintenance area indicates that the State continues to show attainment well below the level of the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and that WDNR's LMP meets all the LMP qualifying criteria set forth in the “Guidance on Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM 2.5 Nonattainment Areas and PM 2.5 Maintenance Areas”. 1 EPA's approval of this LMP will satisfy the CAA section 175A requirements for the second 10-year period for the Milwaukee-Racine 2006 PM 2.5 maintenance area. The Milwaukee-Racine PM 2.5 maintenance area will no longer be required to perform regional emissions analyses as part of the conformity process but must meet project-level conformity analyses requirements as well as other transportation conformity criteria. See 40 CFR 93.109(e).

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, the 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 the 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. The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

WDNR did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis, as is described in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations” in the notice of proposed rulemaking. See 89 FR 19519. The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the 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. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based that is 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 the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 9, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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