This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, terminates regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR part 900.2(j). This rulemaking is issued under Marketing Order No. 929, as amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York. Part 929, referred to as the “Order,” is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee) locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers operating within the production area and a public member.

This rulemaking is also issued under section 8d of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608d(3)), which authorizes the collection of cranberry and cranberry product information from producer-handlers, second handlers, processors, brokers, and importers including those not subject to regulation under the Order.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this rulemaking in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

In addition, this rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined this rulemaking is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rulemaking is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(15)(A)), any handler subject to a marketing order may file with USDA a petition stating that the marketing order, any provision of the marketing order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the marketing order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the marketing order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rulemaking terminates the Order regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York, and removes the Order from the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 929.69 of the Order states AMS shall conduct a referendum during the month of May 1975 and every fourth year thereafter to ascertain whether continuance is favored by producers. Under this section, the Secretary shall terminate the Order if termination is favored by a majority of the growers, and that this majority has, during the current fiscal year, produced more than 50 percent of the cranberries produced in the production area.

As required by the Order, AMS held a continuance referendum among cranberry producers from June 9 through June 30, 2023, to determine if they favored continuation of the program. AMS mailed ballots to 944 producers in the production area. Those producers cast 366 valid ballots. The results indicate 73.5 percent of cranberry growers, who produced 79.9 percent of the production volume, voted in favor of terminating the program. Consequently, the vote met the Order's criteria for termination, demonstrating a lack of the producer support needed to carry out the objectives of the Act.

Section 608d(3) of the Act authorizes the collection of cranberry and cranberry product information from producer-handlers, second handlers, processors, brokers, and importers. This data collection is codified in 7 CFR part 926, Data Collection, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Applicable to Cranberries Not Subject to the Cranberry Marketing Order, establishing reporting requirements for cranberry and cranberry products not subject to the Order and how they were to be reported to the Committee. Section 926.21 states this part shall be suspended or terminated whenever there is no longer a Federal cranberry marketing order in effect. This rulemaking also terminates 7 CFR part 926 which has been suspended since December 29, 2006.

In addition, section 608c(16)(A) of the Act provides that the Secretary shall terminate or suspend the operation of any order whenever the Order or any provision thereof obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to § 608c(16)(A) of the Act and § 929.69 of the Order, the Secretary is terminating the Order.

The Order has been in effect since 1962 and provided the cranberry industry with authority for production research, marketing promotion and development, paid advertising, authority for volume regulation through producer allotments or handler withholding, and reporting and recordkeeping functions needed to operate the program. The Committee, which locally administered the Order, was funded by assessments imposed on handlers. Although marketing order requirements are applied to handlers, the costs of such requirements are often passed on to producers.

Terminating the Order and all the rules and regulations issued thereunder, means the perceived benefits correlated with the Order are also lost. An alternative to this action would be to maintain the Order and its current provisions. However, a review of the continuance referendum results showed producers believe the benefits of the program no longer outweigh the costs to handlers and producers. In addition, termination of the Order and the resulting regulatory relaxation is expected to reduce costs for both producers and handlers. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

This rulemaking terminates the Order and the rules and regulations issued thereunder and removes the suspended data collection requirements in 7 CFR part 926.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 950 cranberry growers in the regulated area and approximately 45 cranberry handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $3,750,000, (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 111334, Berry (except Strawberry) Farming) and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $34,000,000 (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR part 121.201).

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average grower price for U.S. cranberries during the 2022-23 season was $36.60 per barrel and utilized production was 8,010,070 barrels. The value for cranberries that year totaled $293,168,562, ($36.60 per barrel multiplied by 8,010,070 barrels). Taking the total value of production for cranberries and dividing it by the total number of cranberry growers provides an average return per grower of $308,598. Using the average price and utilization information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of cranberry growers receive less than $3,750,000 annually.

According to USDA's Market News retail averages report, the price per pound of fresh cranberries on average was $1.64 in December of 2022. On average, NASS reports that grower prices for fresh cranberries are almost double (199 percent) grower prices for processed cranberries. Dividing the average fresh retail price as reported by Market News ($1.64) by 1.99 calculates to an estimated average retail processed price of $0.82 per pound. There are 100 pounds of cranberries per barrel so the average retail price for a barrel of cranberries would be $82. Multiplying the average retail price by total utilization of 8 million barrels results in an estimated cranberry retail value of $656 million. Dividing this figure by the number of handlers (45) yields an estimated average of annual handler receipts of $14.6 million, which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, the majority of producers and handlers of cranberries may be classified as small entities.

This rulemaking terminates the Order, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder and will remove the Order from the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 929.69 states the Secretary shall terminate the Order if termination is favored by a majority of the growers, and if that majority has, during the current fiscal year, produced more than 50 percent of the cranberries produced in the production area. This rulemaking also removes the requirements of 7 CFR part 926, which required the data collection of cranberries not covered under the Order. In addition, section 608c(16)(A) of the Act provides that the Secretary terminate or suspend the operation of any order whenever the order or any provision thereof obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. An additional provision requires that Congress be notified no later than 60 days before the date the Order is terminated.

Marketing orders provide industries with tools to assist producers and handlers in addressing challenges facing the industry. These tools include establishing minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements, setting size, capacity, weight, dimensions or pack of the containers, collecting and publishing market information useful to producers and handlers, conducting research and promotions, and establishing volume control requirements. Each marketing order is different, with the industries deciding the authorities needed and the scope of their marketing order. Marketing orders are approved by producers through referenda and regulate handlers to ensure compliance with all requirements. The authority of a marketing order allows each industry to create a local administrative committee that is made up of growers and/or handlers that work collectively to solve industry problems. After considering the alternative, the Committee concluded that regulating the handling of cranberries under the Order is no longer necessary to ensure orderly marketing of cranberries. The costs associated with the administration of the Order outweigh the benefits, and that termination of the Order would not have a negative impact on industry.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Fruit Crops. After finalizing termination, AMS will extract the remaining cranberry marketing order-related forms from the forms package during the next three-year renewal process. OMB's three-year expiration date for the package containing cranberry marketing order forms is January 31, 2027.

This rule effectuates the removal of reporting and recordkeeping requirements on cranberry handlers, both small and large. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rulemaking.

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

The producer referendum was well publicized in the production area, and referendum ballots were provided to all known producers. As such, producers of U.S. cranberries had an opportunity to indicate their continued support for the Order.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

A proposed rule inviting comments on the termination of the Order was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2023 (88 FR 85130). A 60-day comment period was provided to allow interested persons an opportunity to respond to the proposed termination of the Order. In addition, AMS published on its website and distributed to industry stakeholders a notice to trade announcing the proposed termination of the Order. Five total comments were received. One comment supported the termination, and one comment was not relevant to the proposal. Three non-substantive comments opposed the termination of the Order, expressing the program is a value to small businesses. Producers of both large and small businesses were provided the opportunity to show support for the Order during the continuance referendum. Further, producers who voted in the referendum elected to terminate the Order indicating the costs associated with the administration of the Order outweigh the benefits and, therefore, the Order is no longer meeting the needs of the industry. Those producers also believe that terminating the Order will not have a negative impact on the industry. Accordingly, after reviewing and considering all comments received during the comment period, the Secretary determined that termination of the Order was appropriate. All the comments may be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov.

Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to section 608c(16)(A) of the Act and § 929.69 of the Order, it is hereby found that Federal Marketing Order No. 929 regulating the handling of cranberries grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act and is therefore terminated.

Following termination, trustees will be appointed to conclude and liquidate the Committee affairs and will continue in that capacity until discharged by the Secretary. In addition, pursuant to 608c(16)(A) of the Act, USDA is required to notify Congress 60 days in advance of termination. Congress was so notified on April 11, 2024.

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, amends regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California. Part 932 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives operating within the area of production.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 directs agencies to conduct proactive outreach to engage interested and affected parties through a variety of means, such as through field offices, and alternative platforms and media. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions will have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. Under the Order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate this rule establishes will be applicable to all assessable olives beginning on January 1, 2024, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

Section 932.38 of the Order authorizes the Committee, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus able to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

This rule decreases the assessment rate from $35 per ton of assessed olives, the rate that was established for the 2023 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years, to $28 per ton of assessed olives for the 2024 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years. The lower rate is the result of the significantly higher crop size in 2023 (fruit that is marketed over the course of the 2024 fiscal year), and the need to maintain the Committee's financial reserve at a responsible level.

The Committee met on December 12, 2023, and unanimously recommended 2024 expenditures of $1,100,151 and an assessment rate of $28 per ton of assessed olives. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,154,412. The assessment rate of $28 set for the remainder of the 2024 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years is $7 lower than the rate established for the 2023 fiscal year. Producer receipts show total production of approximately 34,000 tons of olives from the 2023 crop year that will be assessable during the 2024 fiscal year. This amount is substantially higher than the quantity of olives that was harvested in 2022.

Olives harvested in 2023 will be marketed over the course of the 2024 fiscal year, which begins on January 1, 2024, as the harvested olives are stored in brining tanks and processed over the subsequent year. At the $28 per ton assessment rate, the estimated 34,000 tons of assessable olives from the 2023 crop are expected to generate $952,000 in assessment revenue over the 2024 fiscal year. The balance of funds needed to cover budgeted expenditures will come from interest income and the Committee's financial reserve. The 2024 fiscal year assessment rate decrease is appropriate to ensure the Committee has sufficient revenue to fund the recommended 2024 fiscal year budgeted expenditures while also ensuring that funds in the reserve do not exceed approximately one fiscal year's expenses, the maximum reserve amount permitted by § 932.40.

The Order has a fiscal year and a crop year that are independent of each other. The crop year is a 12-month period that begins on August 1 of each year and ends on July 31 of the following year. The fiscal year is the 12-month period that begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 of each year. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop (2022) followed by a large crop (2023). For this assessment rate rule, the Committee utilized the estimated 2023 crop year receipts to determine the recommended assessment rate for the 2024 fiscal year.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024 fiscal year include $350,250 for program administration, $164,650 for export programs, $197,500 for marketing activities, $302,751 for research, and $85,000 for inspection. Budgeted expenses for these items during the 2023 fiscal year were $399,700, $148,000, $193,000, $325,712, and $88,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee resulted from consideration of anticipated fiscal year expenses, estimated olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2023 crop year, and the amount in the Committee's financial reserve. Income derived from handler assessments and other revenue sources is expected to be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or AMS. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's budget for subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by AMS.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 800 producers of olives in the production area and 2 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.5 million (NAICS code 111339, Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming) and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34.0 million (NAICS code 115114, Postharvest Crop Activities) (13 CFR 121.201).

Because of the large year-to-year variation in California olive production, it is helpful to use a two-year average of the seasonal average producer price when undertaking calculations relating to average producer revenue. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported season average producer prices of olives utilized for canning for 2021 and 2022 of $851 and $913 per ton, respectively, with a two-year average price of $882. NASS had not reported the 2023 season average producer price at the time this rule was published.

The appropriate quantities to consider are the annual assessable olive quantities, which were 43,336 tons in 2021 and 19,912 tons in 2022, with the two-year average production being 31,624 tons. Multiplying 31,624 tons by the two-year average producer price of $882 yields a two-year average crop value of $27,892,368. Dividing the crop value by the number of olive producers (800) yields calculated annual average producer revenue of $34,865, much less than SBA's size standard of $3.5 million. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities.

Dividing the $27,892,368 average crop value by 2 (the number of handlers) equals $13,946,184, which is the annual average producer crop value processed by each of the 2 handlers over the two-year period. Dividing the $34.0 million annual sales SBA size threshold for a large handler by the $13,946,184 crop value per handler yields an estimate of a 125 percent manufacturing margin for the 2 handlers, on average, to be considered large handlers. A key question is whether 125 percent is a reasonable estimate of a manufacturing margin for the olive canning process.

A review of economic literature on canned food manufacturing margins found no recent published estimates. A series of Economic Research Service reports on cost components of farm to retail price spreads, published in the late 1970s and early 1980s, found that margins above crop value for a canned vegetable product were in the range of 76 to 85 percent. Although the studies are not recent, canning technology has not changed significantly since that time. Therefore, with the 125 percent margin estimate for the 2 olive handlers, the data indicates that they could be on the threshold of being large handlers ($34.0 million in annual sales), using two-year average data, and assuming that the 2 handlers are about the same size. In a large crop year, one or both handlers could be considered large handlers, depending on the proportion of the crop that each of the handlers processed.

This action decreases the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2024 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years from $35 to $28 per ton of assessable olives. The Committee unanimously recommended 2024 expenditures of $1,100,151 and an assessment rate of $28 per ton. The recommended assessment rate of $28 is $7 lower than the 2023 assessment rate. The quantity of assessable olives harvested in the 2023 crop year is estimated to be 34,000 tons, compared to 19,912 tons in 2022. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop (2022) followed by a large crop (2023). Income derived from the $28 per ton assessment rate, along with interest income and funds from the authorized reserve, should be adequate to meet the 2024 fiscal year's budgeted expenditures.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2024 fiscal year include $350,250 for program administration, $164,650 for export programs, $197,500 for marketing activities, $302,751 for research, and $85,000 for inspection. Budgeted expenses for these items during the 2023 fiscal year were $399,700, $148,000, $193,000, $325,712, and $88,000, respectively.

The Committee deliberated on many of the expenses, weighed the relative value of various programs or projects, and decreased their expenses for inspection and research activities while increasing marketing activities. Overall, the 2024 budget of $1,100,151 is $54,261 less than the $1,154,412 budgeted for the 2023 fiscal year.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources including the Committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the increased olive production. The assessment rate of $28 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the high volume of assessable olives, the current balance in the monetary reserve, and additional pertinent factors.

A review of information from NASS indicates that the average producer price for the 2022 crop year (the most recent year for which information is available) was $913 per ton. Therefore, utilizing the assessment rate established herein of $28 per ton, assessment revenue for the 2024 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be approximately 3.1 percent ($28 divided by $913 times 100).

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers. Some of the assessment costs to handlers may be passed on to producers. Decreasing the assessment rate is expected to reduce the burden on handlers and may also, therefore, reduce the burden on producers.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

A proposed rulemaking concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2024 (89 FR 21441). Copies of the proposed rulemaking were provided to all olive handlers. In addition, the proposal was made available through the internet by AMS and the Office of the Federal Register . A 30-day comment period ending April 29, 2024, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. There were no comments received during the comment period. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rulemaking as proposed.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, AMS has determined that this rule is consistent with, and will effectuate the declared policy of, the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 932 as follows:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0096 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2024-0096. Address questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder, telephone: 301-415-3407, email: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2024-0096 in your comment submission.

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

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

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032 and does not include other aspects of the HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multi-purpose Canister Storage System (HI-STORM FW System) design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be non-controversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on September 25, 2024. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by August 12, 2024, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register or as otherwise appropriate. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33121), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1032.

On May 6, 2021, Holtec International submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1032. Holtec International supplemented its request on October 15, 2021; February 17, 2022; July 11, 2022; July 13, 2022; July 29, 2022; September 15, 2022; October 3, 2022; December 1, 2022; January 6, 2023; May 8, 2023; June 30, 2023; July 11, 2023; August 15, 2023; November 17, 2023; February 16, 2024; and April 8, 2024. Amendment No. 7 revises the CoC as follows:

1. Adds a new unventilated high density (UVH) overpack, HI-STORM 100 UVH, which includes high density concrete for shielding. The UVH is to be used with MPC-37, MPC-89, and the new MPC-44.

2. Modifies vent and drain penetrations to include the option of a second port cover plate.

3. Allows automated equipment to perform leak test of the MPC materials and welds in the fabrication shop.

4. Changes the hydrostatic pressure test of the MPC acceptance criteria to be examination for leakage only and removes post hydrostatic test liquid penetrant and magnetic particle examination.

5. Includes the ability to use computational fluid dynamics analysis to evaluate site-specific fire accident scenarios.

6. Uses updated methodology for tornado missile stability calculations for freestanding HI-STORMs and HI-TRACs (transfer casks) and clarifies the weights to be used for varying heights of HI-TRACs.

7. Adds the new MPC-44, with continuous basket shim (CBS) and to hold 44 pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies of certain 14x14 fuel class. It is to be used with HI-STORM FW System Version E and UVH overpacks.

8. Adds the new MPC-37P, with CBS and to hold 37 pressurized-water reactor fuel assemblies of certain 15x15 fuel class. It is to be used with Version E overpack.

9. Adds HI-DRIP ancillary system, which is an optional ancillary system designed to prevent water within the MPC while loaded in the HI-TRAC from boiling during loading and unloading operations.

10. Includes the ability to use computational fluid dynamics analysis to evaluate site-specific burial-under-debris accident scenarios.

11. Includes the ability to use water without glycol in the HI-TRAC water jacket during transfer operations below 32 °F based on the site specific MPC total heat loads.

12. Adds new 10x10J fuel type to approved content in the HI-STORM FW System.

13. Updates bounding fuel variables for 8x8F and 11x11A boiling-water reactor fuel types in CoC appendix B.

14. Adopts a stress-based structural design criterion.

15. Establishes specific criteria on allowable interference due to differential thermal expansion.

This amendment also makes the following editorial changes:

1. Revises the description of the HI-STORM FW System in the CoC to clearly indicate that only the portions of the components that come into contact with the pool water need to be made of stainless steel or aluminum. This change was previously approved in HI-STORM FW System Amendment No. 8.

2. Revises the statements in final safety analysis report (FSAR) Section 3.2 related to center of gravity eccentricities in the evaluation of lifting devices.

3. Revises the FSAR by deleting Appendices 3.A to 3.C and adding references to calculation packages [3.4.13] and [3.4.15], where applicable.

4. Revises CoC Appendix B Section 2.5 to clarify that the equation burn up and cooling time qualification requirements only apply to specific alternative loading patterns.

5. Revises the FSAR by adding discussions related to short-term operations in the event of environmental phenomena to provide clarity and guidance on required site-specific analyses.

6. Revises the FSAR by adding discussions related to site-specific analyses and adds references to a series of analysis methodologies for standardization.

The changes to the aforementioned documents are identified with revisions bars in the margin of each document.

In a final rule effective July 14, 2020 (85 FR 43419), the NRC approved Holtec International HI-STORM FW System Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 4 but did not include the model number. The NRC is correcting the list of model numbers to include MPC-32ML.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 7 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Thus, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The NRC determined that the amended HI-STORM FW System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into HI-STORM FW System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1032.

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

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

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

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

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1032.

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 7 revises the CoC to add a new unventilated high density (UVH) overpack, modify vent and drain penetrations, allow automated equipment to perform leak test, change the hydrostatic pressure test acceptance criteria, include the ability to use computational fluid dynamics analysis to evaluate site-specific fire accident scenario, use updated methodology for tornado missile stability calculations, add the new MPC-44, add the new MPC-37P, add HI-DRIP ancillary system, include the ability to use computational fluid dynamics analysis to evaluate site-specific burial-under-debris accident scenario, include the ability to use water without glycol in the HI-TRAC water jacket, add new 10x10J fuel type to approved content, update bounding fuel variables for specific fuel types, adopt a stress-based structural design criterion, establish specific criteria on allowable interference due to differential thermal expansion, and other editorial changes.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 7 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

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

This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 7 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask as modified by this rule would maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 7 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into a Holtec International HI-STORM FW System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 7 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.

Approval of Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

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

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM FW System Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 7,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

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

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

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

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33121), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the HI-STORM FW System by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On May 6, 2021, and as supplemented on October 15, 2021, February 17, 2022, July 11, 2022, July 13, 2022, July 29, 2022, September 15, 2022, October 3, 2022, December 1, 2022, January 6, 2023, May 8, 2023, June 30, 2023, July 11, 2023, August 15, 2023, November 17, 2023, February 16, 2024, and April 8, 2024, Holtec International submitted a request to amend the HI-STORM FW System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 7 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System under the changes described in Amendment No. 7 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

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

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§ 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of the changes in Amendment No. 7 previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and technical specifications.

Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 for the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System was initiated by Holtec International and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 7 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 7. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM FW System and the current Amendment Nos. 6 and 8 continue to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 7, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 7 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1032 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

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

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

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2024-0096. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2024-0096); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

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

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to 14 CFR 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are unnecessary.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), § 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about these special conditions.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these proposed special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. Comments the FAA receives, which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for these proposed special conditions.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments, and will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring delay. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On December 15, 2020, Gulfstream applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00021AT to include the new Model GVII-G400. The Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane, which is a derivative of the Model GVII-G500 currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00021AT, is a twin-engine business jet, with a maximum seating capacity for 19 passengers, and a maximum take-off weight of 73,500 pounds.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), § 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G400 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021AT, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model GVII- G400 airplane must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Seating with inflatable lapbelts.

An inflatable lap belt is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an accident, and thereby reduce the potential for head injury. The inflatable lap belt behaves similarly to an automotive inflatable airbag, but in this case the airbag is integrated into the lap belt and inflates away from the seated occupant. While inflatable airbags are now standard in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable lap belt is novel for commercial aviation.

Occupants must be protected from head injury, as required by § 25.785, either by eliminating any injurious object within the striking radius of the head, or by installing padding. Traditionally, this has required either a setback of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid interior feature or, where not practical, the installation of specified types of padding. The relative effectiveness of these established means of injury protection was not quantified. With the adoption of Amendment 25-64 to part 25, specifically § 25.562, a new standard was created that quantifies required head-injury protection.

Each seat-type design approved for crew or passenger occupancy during takeoff and landing, as required by § 25.562, must successfully complete dynamic tests or be demonstrated by rational analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat. In particular, the regulations require that persons not suffer serious head injury under the conditions specified in the tests, and that protection must be provided, or the seat be designed, so that head impact does not exceed a (head injury criteria) HIC value of 1,000 units. While the test conditions described for HIC are detailed and specific, it is the intent of the requirement that an adequate level of head-injury protection be provided for passengers in a severe crash.

Because §§ 25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not adequately address seats with inflatable lap belts, the FAA recognizes that appropriate pass/fail criteria need to be developed that fully address the safety concerns specific to occupants of these seats.

The inflatable lap belt has two potential advantages over other means of head-impact protection. First, it can provide significantly greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads, and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a safety standpoint because such devices will likely provide a level of safety that exceeds the minimum standards of part 25. Conversely, inflatable lap belts in general are active systems and must be relied upon to activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive and always available. Therefore, the potential advantages must be balanced against this and other potential disadvantages to develop standards for this design feature.

The FAA has considered the installation of inflatable lap belts to have two primary safety concerns: First, that they perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions; and second, that they do not perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of the system.

The inflatable lap belt will rely on electronic sensors for signaling, and will employ an automatic inflation mechanism for activation, so that it is available when needed. These same devices could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of such deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the system. An applicant must substantiate that the effects of an inadvertent deployment in flight are either not a hazard to the airplane, or that such deployment is an extremely improbable occurrence (less than 10 −9 per flight hour). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a passenger or crewmember that might be positioned close to the inflatable lap belt should also be considered. The person could be either standing or sitting. A minimum reliability level will have to be established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the effect on the airplane is negligible.

Because the inflatable lap belt is essentially a single-use device, it could potentially deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require head-injury protection from the inflatable lap belt. And because an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could render the inflatable lap belt useless if a larger impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy-absorbing pads or upper-torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous protection regardless of severity or number of impacts in a crash event. Therefore, the inflatable lap-belt installation should be such that the inflatable lap belt will provide protection when it is required, by not expending its protection during a less-severe impact. Also, it is possible to have several large impact events during the course of a crash, but there will be no requirement for the inflatable lap belt to provide protection for multiple impacts. An acceptable method to show an inflatable lap belt deploys at an appropriate time is to conduct threshold testing to demonstrate the device trigger G-level is high enough to prevent false activations and low enough to deploy the airbag in time to protect the occupant. A threshold pulse that is scaled down from the required 16g, 90 ms triangular pulse in § 25.562 is used. The FAA considers a suitable trigger force and time to fire range of 7.5g with 1.5 m/s at 42 ms and 9.3g with 2.4 m/s at 52 ms to be acceptable. FAA TSO-C127c, Appendix 1 provides additional information on sensor-driven restraint systems where it modifies AS8049C by adding subsection 5.3.1.5.

Since each occupant's restraint system provides protection for that occupant only, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied. It will be necessary for Gulfstream to show that the required protection is provided for each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats, considering that unoccupied seats may have lap belts that are active.

The inflatable lap belt should be effective for a wide range of occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male as the range of occupants that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is proposing consideration of a broader range of occupants due to the nature of the lap-belt installation and its close proximity to the occupant. In a similar vein, these persons could have assumed the brace position for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data indicate that occupants in the brace position do not require supplemental protection, so it would not be necessary to show that the inflatable lap belt will enhance the brace position. However, the inflatable lap belt must not introduce a hazard when it is deployed into a seated, braced occupant.

Another area of concern is the use of seats so equipped by children, whether lap-held, in approved child safety seats, or occupying the seat directly. Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the installation should address such usage, either by demonstrating that it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on usage.

Since the inflatable lap belt will be electrically powered, there is the possibility that the system could fail due to a separation in the fuselage. Since this system is intended as crash/post-crash protection means, failure to deploy due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with emergency lighting, the system should function properly if such a separation occurs at any point in the fuselage. As required by § 25.1353(a), operation of the existing aircraft electrical equipment should not adversely impact the function of the inflatable lap belt under all foreseeable conditions.

Because the inflatable lap belt is likely to have a large volume displacement, the inflated bag could potentially impede egress of passengers. However, the lap-belt bag deflates to absorb energy, so it is likely that an inflatable lap belt would be deflated by the time passengers begin to leave their seats. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable lap belt may not impede rapid egress. The maximum time allowed for an exit to open fully after actuation is 10 seconds, according to § 25.809(b)(2). Therefore, the FAA has established 10 seconds as the time interval that the inflatable lap belt must not impede rapid egress from the seat after it is deployed. In actuality, it is unlikely that a flight attendant would prepare an exit this quickly in an accident severe enough to warrant deployment of the inflatable lap belt. The inflatable lap belt will likely deflate much more quickly than 10 seconds.

Inflatable lap belts must not impede access to, or opening of, exits. The applicant must show compliance with the exit opening and access requirements of §§ 25.809 and 25.813 with representative inflatable lap belts in both the pre- and post-deployed conditions. The evaluation must include review for obstructions in the egress path and any interferences in opening the exit and must consider each unique interior configuration. Additional project specific guidance may be needed if inflatable lap belts are installed at overwing exit rows.

Part I of appendix F to part 25 specifies the flammability requirements for interior materials and components. There is no reference to inflatable restraint systems in appendix F because such devices did not exist at the time the flammability requirements were written. The existing requirements are based on both material types, as well as use, and have been specified in light of the state-of-the-art of materials available to perform a given function. In the absence of a specific reference, the default requirement would be for the type of material used to construct the inflatable restraint, which is a fabric in this case. However, in writing a special condition, the FAA must also consider the use of the material, and whether the default requirement is appropriate. In this case, the specialized function of the inflatable restraint means that highly specialized materials are needed. The standard normally applied to fabrics is a 12-second vertical ignition test. However, materials that meet this standard do not perform adequately as inflatable restraints. Since the safety benefit of the inflatable restraint is very significant, the flammability standard appropriate for these devices should not screen out suitable materials, thereby effectively eliminating use of inflatable restraints. The FAA needs to establish a balance between the safety benefit of the inflatable restraint, and its flammability performance. At this time, the 2.5-inch per minute horizontal test as defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5) is considered to provide that balance. As the technology in materials progresses (which is expected), the FAA may change this standard in subsequent special conditions to account for improved materials.

The potential for an inadvertent deployment could be increased as a result of conditions in service. The installation must take into account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context, an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are considered necessary. In addition, outside influences such as lightning and high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) may also contribute to or cause inadvertent deployment. Existing regulations regarding lightning, § 25.1316, and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF), § 25.1317 for the GVII-G400 aircraft are applicable. It must be verified that electromagnetic interference present, under foreseeable operating conditions, will not affect the function of the inflatable lap belt or cause inadvertent deployment. Finally, the inflatable lap belt installation should be protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of the pyrotechnic squib.

Note that the special conditions are applicable to the inflatable lap-belt system as installed. The special conditions are not an installation approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall installation approval is separate, and must consider the combined effects of all such systems installed.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVII-G400 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one airplane model. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

1. The inflatable lap belt must deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious head injury. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a two-year-old child to a 95th percentile male. The inflatable lap belt must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range of occupants. In addition, the following situations must be considered:

a. The seated occupant is holding an infant.

b. The seated occupant is a child in a child-restraint device.

c. The seated occupant is a pregnant woman.

2. The inflatable lap belt must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active airbag system in the lap belt.

3. The design must prevent the inflatable lap belt from being either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed such that the inflatable lap belt would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the required injury protection.

4. The inflatable lap belt system must not be susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings) likely to be experienced in service.

5. Deployment of the inflatable lap belt must not injure the seated occupant, including injuries that would impede rapid evacuation. This assessment should include an occupant who is in the brace position when it deploys and an occupant whose belt is loosely fastened.

6. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the inflatable lap belt, during the most critical part of the flight, will either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b) or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.

7. The inflatable lap belt must not impede rapid evacuation of occupants 10 seconds after its deployment.

8. The inflatable lap belt must function properly after loss of normal aircraft electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the lap belt does not have to be considered.

9. The inflatable lap belt must not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.

10. The inflatable lap belt installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.

11. There must be a means for a crewmember to verify the integrity of the inflatable lap belt activation system prior to each flight or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals.

12. The inflatable material must not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches/minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test as defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).

13. The airbag system in the lap belt, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency lighting system ( i.e., block proximity lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their intended function).

14. The inflatable lap belt system must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lightning, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are adopted by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2024 (89 FR 20141). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-55, dated July 18, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that during airplane refueling, a spark was seen when the fuel cap chain contacted one of the fuel scupper bolts. An inspection was performed and one of the fourteen bolts that surround the fuel inlet was found touching an electrical wire behind the scupper. Due to vibrations during flight, the bolt damaged the wire insulation and when the bolt was grounded to the airframe a spark was generated.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the electrical wires attached to the airplane connector located behind the fuel scupper for damage, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damaged wire insulation, which could lead to electrical sparks during refueling and possibly result in a fire.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0467.

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

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

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-28-014, dated May 10, 2023; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-28-003, dated May 10, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the electrical wires attached to the J274 connector ( i.e., the airplane connector located behind the fuel scupper) for damage ( i.e., core of the electrical wire exposed, or damage such as black soot to the insulation with no core exposure), and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative action includes inspecting the fuel scupper for damage ( i.e., arcing or pitting marks directly or indirectly induced by the wire chaffed on the scupper bolt and the surrounding area). The corrective actions include repairing any damaged fuel scupper, repairing or replacing any damaged electrical wire, and reinstalling the fuel scupper without a certain attachment bolt. These documents are distinct since they apply to different configurations of the airplane.

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 163 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 on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2024 (89 FR 24748). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0208, dated November 22, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0208) (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 a quality review revealed that nonconforming washers may have been installed in production on engine 1 and 3 forward yokes. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to cracks in the bolts and the engine forward yokes, possibly resulting in loss of a lateral engine.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection for non-conforming washers and, depending on findings, related investigative and corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0208. 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-2024-0998.

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.

EASA AD 2023-0208 specifies procedures for a one-time inspection for non-conforming (non-compliant) double countersink washers on the engine 1 and 3 forward yokes, installing the engine 1 and 3 forward yokes with new attachments, and, depending on findings, related investigative and corrective actions. Related investigative and corrective actions include a special detailed fatigue inspection for cracking of the engine forward yokes and replacement if any cracking is found. 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 8 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 on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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 FTC's Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising” (“Franchise Rule” or “Rule”)  1 provides three exemptions based on a monetary threshold: The “minimum payment exemption,”  2 the “large franchise investment exemption”  3 and the “large franchisee exemption.”  4 The Rule requires the Commission to “adjust the size of the monetary thresholds every fourth year based upon the . . . Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [CPI-U] published by the Department of Labor.”  5 This requirement, added by the 2007 amendments to the Rule, took effect on July 1, 2007, so that franchisors would have a one-year phase-in period within which to comply with the amended Rule's revised disclosure requirements before the July 1, 2008, final compliance deadline. 6

As required by the Rule, the Commission previously revised the three monetary thresholds to reflect inflation in the CPI-U in 2012, 2016, and 2020. 7 The Commission bases the exemption monetary thresholds that will take effect on July 12, 2024, on the increase in the CPI-U between 2007 and 2023. During this period, the annual average value of the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers and all items increased by 46.96%—from an index value of 207.342 to a value of 304.702. 8 Applying the percentage increase to the three monetary thresholds increases the thresholds as follows:

Because the calculation of these thresholds is purely ministerial in nature and implements the Rule's mandatory adjustment mechanism, these adjustments are exempt from the rulemaking procedures specified in section 18 of the FTC Act. 10 In addition, the Commission has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for the same reason. The Commission, therefore, has omitted notice and comment for “good cause” as provided by section 553(b)(B) of the APA. 11 For this reason, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act also do not apply. 12 Accordingly, the adjusted thresholds will take effect on July 12, 2024. 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).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR part 436 as follows:

This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's website at: www.federalregister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at: www.GovInfo.gov.

This regulatory action is necessary to update 23 CFR part 661 to reflect the changes made to the program since the last regulatory update in 2008 (73 FR 15664, Mar. 25, 2008). These changes are largely nomenclature changes to the existing regulation that FHWA has been implementing under 23 U.S.C. 202(d), and do not substantively change the TTFBP. Importantly, this rule aligns the TTFBP terminology for bridge conditions with the terminology used in the Federal-aid highway program for State DOTs. This change establishes a consistent terminology for classifying and referring to bridge conditions.

The FHWA published its NPRM on April 04, 2023, at 88 FR 19571, requesting comments to the proposed amendments. In response to the NPRM, FHWA received comments from the Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA), 1 Tribal consultant, 1 anonymous commenter, and from 12 Tribes: the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Chickasaw Nation, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Ho Chunk Nation, Pueblo of Jemez, Nez Perce Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Spirit Lake Tribe, Trinidad Rancheria, and the Spirit Lake Tribe. The FHWA considered each of the comments in adopting this final rule.

Most of the comments received addressed several common issues. These issues are addressed and discussed under the appropriate section below. The remaining sections did not receive comments and will be adopted as proposed.

(This discussion references the existing regulation, including prior nomenclature).

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended deleting “and Tribal Consortiums” from this section.

The FHWA adopted this recommendation throughout the regulation because the primary applicant is the Tribe.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended including the installation of scour countermeasures in this section.

While scour countermeasures have always been an eligible activity for TTFBP funds, FHWA adopts the recommendation to add an explicit reference to the installation of scour countermeasures in this section for clarity. Also, FHWA added safety inspection of in-service bridges as part of eligible planning activities and clarified the inspection of new or replacement Tribal Transportation Facility (TTF) bridges is for construction inspection activity.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended in § 661.17(a)(2) to add the requirement that the Tribal transportation facility be in the National Tribal Transportation Facility Inventory (NTTFI).

The FHWA does not believe the additional language is necessary because it is covered by the Tribal transportation facility definition in this regulation.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also recommended that § 661.17(b)(1) should allow design of a new bridge to begin without the bridge being in the NTTFI, although they did not request changes to the proposed regulatory text. They recommended that as long as the bridge project is on a Tribal Transportation Improvement Plan (TTIP) and is approved by the Tribal Council, it can be added to the NTTFI during design, and the bridge must be classified as a Tribal transportation facility in the NTTFI to be eligible for construction.

The FHWA agrees with this position and notes that nothing in § 661.17(b)(1) would prohibit this interpretation. The FHWA does believe, however, that the new bridge to be designed and constructed must be within a route that is identified in the NTTFI. With respect to newly funded bridges still in the design stage, Tribes should start the process of recording the bridge in the NTTFI and not wait after it is built.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also recommended that culverts be added to the new proposed regulations as eligible projects.

The FHWA declines to adopt this proposal but notes that replacing an existing culvert with a culvert that meets the definition of a TTF bridge could be funded under the TTFBP as a new bridge.

Finally, FHWA has also removed references in § 661.17(a)(1) and (b)(2) to the length of the bridge opening and has replaced them with a reference to the definition of TTF bridge to increase clarity.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe asked if any leftover TTFBP funds at the end of the fiscal year could be used to fund bridges in fair condition.

The FHWA regulation does allow for fair condition bridges needing geometric improvements to be eligible for funding as long as they meet the criteria for bridge eligibility in § 661.17.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended that Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) owned bridges be a priority for funding and that new bridges rank third in the ranking criteria after poor condition bridges.

The FHWA recognizes the Tribes' interest in maximizing TTFBP funds for BIA and Tribal TTF bridges and adopted this recommendation. Up to 80 percent of the funding made available for Preliminary Engineering (PE) and construction in any fiscal year is eligible for use on BIA and Tribally owned TTF bridges. The FHWA also adopted the recommendation that new bridge construction be added to the ranking criteria for funding. However, FHWA believes that it is most appropriate to add it as the fourth ranking criteria so as to prioritize projects addressing safety.

The FHWA has made three additional changes to the final rule text to increase clarity. First, we replaced the phrase “All projects will be programmed for funding” with the phrase “All projects will be ranked and prioritized for funding.” The new language provides consistency with the language in § 661.23(b) and better describes the implementation of the program. Second, we replaced the phrase “low load capacity bridges based on Operating Rating” with the phrase “operating rating for bridges in poor condition with lower operating rating having precedence over higher operating rating”. The new language provides clarity to use the operating rating as a ranking criterion for poor condition bridges with the same condition rating. Finally, we removed the numerical item numbers from the condition rating item names in § 661.23(d)(1). This change will reduce confusion as FHWA transitions from the Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges to the Specifications for the National Bridge Inventory.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended that county- and State-owned bridges' local match for the TTFBP be at 80 percent, and that the TTFBP can only be the 20 percent local match to other funding. The Tribes stated that county and State projects shall only be eligible for funding given that they meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 202(f) and that the obligation of Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) funds for a project is supplementary to and not in lieu of the obligation of a fair and equitable share of funds apportioned to the State.

The FHWA recognizes the Tribes' interest in maximizing TTFBP funds for BIA and Tribal TTF bridges. Up to 80 percent of the funding made available for PE and construction in any fiscal year is eligible for use on BIA and Tribally owned TTF bridges. The remaining funding in any fiscal year is made available for PE and construction for use on non-BIA/non-Tribally owned TTF bridges. However, FHWA has removed the minimum 20 percent local funding match requirement for non-BIA/non-Tribally owned TTF bridges because Tribal bridge set aside funds from the Bridge Formula Program (BFP) to carry out 23 U.S.C. 202(d) is 100 percent for all eligible TTF bridges. The statute controls the BFP Tribal bridge set aside funds.

The Nez Perce Tribe, Pueblo of Jemez, and the ITA support the existing 20 percent match requirement for non-BIA/non-Tribal bridges.

As stated previously, FHWA has removed the minimum 20 percent local funding match for non-BIA/non-Tribally owned TTF bridges because the Tribal bridge set aside funds from the BFP to carry out 23 U.S.C. 202(d) is 100 percent for all eligible TTF bridges. The statute controls the BFP Tribal bridge set aside funds.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe strongly disagree with removing the phrase “trust responsibilities” from this section or any other parts of these regulations stating that the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to Native Americans which derives from Treaties, Executive orders, case law, and Federal legislation.

The FHWA adopts the language as proposed. This section pertains only to priority of project selection and does not discuss the trust responsibility of the Federal Government.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph indicating “If construction funding does not use 85 percent of the funding the remaining funding may be used for PE.”

The FHWA recognizes the need for both PE and construction. At various times during the fiscal year, FHWA will review the TTFBP funding and may shift funds between PE and construction funds to maximize the number of projects funded and the overall effectiveness of the program.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended funding all BIA and Tribally owned bridges in the queue first and then BIA and Tribally owned culverts. The Tribes recommended to use the remaining funds to cover the non-BIA and non-Tribally owned bridges.

The FHWA recognizes the Tribes' interest in prioritizing the TTFBP funds for BIA and Tribal TTF bridges. Up to 80 percent of the funding made available for PE and construction in any fiscal year is eligible for use on BIA and Tribally owned TTF bridges. The remaining funding in any fiscal year is made available for PE and construction for use on non-BIA/non-Tribally owned TTF bridges.

In the NPRM, FHWA was considering adjusting the funding limits for PE in § 661.37(a) and for PE and construction in § 661.37(b) because the existing funding limits established by the 2008 final rule have not kept pace with increased costs in the last 15 years and adjustment may be necessary to allow increased flexibility. The FHWA specifically requested comments on whether these amounts should be adjusted. Several Tribes made recommendations on the new funding limits: the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Chickasaw Nation, Forest County Potawatomi Community, Nez Perce Tribe, Ho Chunk Nation, Jemez Pueblo, and Trinidad Rancheria. In addition, comments were received from the ITA, Eastern Region Tribes, LLC, and one anonymous comment.

While the commenters made a number of recommendations, since the publication of the NPRM, FHWA has determined that the statutory language addresses the issue of Federal share for funds set aside from the BFP to carry out 23 U.S.C. 202(d). The Federal share associated with the funds set aside from the BFP to carry out 23 U.S.C. 202(d) is 100 percent. Therefore, this section has been revised to eliminate the funding limits for both PE and construction funds, as well as eliminating the 20 percent local match requirement for non-BIA/non-Tribally owned TTF bridges.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended a graduated percentage of construction cost to encompass the work needed to reach preliminary engineering (PE) estimated cost. Based on FHWA's experience with the prior TTP Bridge Program, FHWA adopted this recommendation as set forth in the fee scale below:

Estimated Construction Cost:

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended not to return the unobligated TTFBP funds to FHWA during August Redistribution unless the Tribes are able to participate in that program.

The FHWA notes that the only TTFBP funds subject to August Redistribution are the funds from the Highway Trust Fund. Unobligated TTFBP funds from the General Fund will continue to be available until their lapsing period.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Omaha Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe recommended to add “as long as they are in the NTTFI and meet the criteria of 23 U.S.C. 202(f).”

The FHWA declines to adopt the additional language for the reasons discussed in § 661.17.

The FHWA revised this section to reference the design standards to 25 CFR part 170, subpart D, appendix B to be used for § 661.53(a) and (b).

The Native Village of Ouzinkie has poor condition bridges that carry pedestrian and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) traffic and wants these bridges to be addressed, but they did not provide any proposed regulatory recommendations for doing so.

The FHWA's TTFBP only funds TTF bridges that carry highway vehicular traffic. 1 While pedestrian and ATV bridges are not eligible for funding under the TTFBP, FHWA encourages the commenter to pursue other potential surface transportation funding sources available for pedestrian and bicycle projects. 2

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. This action complies with E.O.s 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal and that the benefits would outweigh the costs. This rule would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule amends the existing regulations pursuant to section 1119 of MAP-21, section 1118 of the FAST Act, and sections 11118, 14004, and Division J of the BIL, and would not fundamentally alter the funding available for the replacement or rehabilitation of TTF bridges in poor condition. For these reasons, FHWA certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires agencies to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million, using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. In addition, the definition of “Federal mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or Tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

The FHWA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Local entities should refer to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction, for further information.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this action does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

The FHWA has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and has determined that it will not have any significant effect on the quality of the environment and is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. The FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this rule; no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Prior to the publication of the NPRM, several appropriate meetings and consultations with the Tribal governments were held in 2022 about the TTFBP and the NPRM. The following meetings with the Tribes were held:

1. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) Virtual Meeting, March 10, 2022.

2. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Alaska Provider's Conference Virtual Meeting, April 6, 2022.

3. Tribal Transportation Program Coordinating Committee (TTPCC) Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 17, 2022.

4. Intertribal Transportation Association (ITA) Virtual Meeting, June 29, 2022.

5. United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) Virtual Meeting, July 19, 2022.

6. TTPCC Meeting in Lewiston, Idaho, August 9, 2022.

7. National Transportation in Indian Country Conference (NTICC) Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, August 25, 2022.

8. BIA Alaska Provider's Conference in Anchorage, Alaska, November 30, 2022.

9. ITA Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, December 7, 2022.

Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal governments, FHWA held four more Tribal consultation meetings during the public comment period. A listening session was held virtually on April 4, 2023. Three in-person meetings were held at three different locations: on April 20, 2023, at the Department of the Interior, National Indian Programs Training Center, Albuquerque, NM; on May 17, 2023, at the Great Northern Jerome Hill Theater, St. Paul, MN; and on May 18, 2023, at the Northwest Region Transportation Symposium, Northern Quest Resort and Casino, Airway Heights, WA. The comments submitted by Tribes through the docket and provided by Tribes at the consultation meetings noted above were considered during the development of this rulemaking.

The E.O. 12898 requires that each Federal Agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this rule does not raise any environmental justice issues.

A Regulation Identification Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at [ https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202310&RIN=2125-AF91 ].

On February 6, 2024, the Silverback Pacific Company notified the Coast Guard of their intention to conduct the “Sail Grand Prix, Season 4” in the San Francisco Bay. Sail Grand Prix (SailGP) is a sailing league featuring world-class sailors racing 50-foot foiling catamarans. The 2023-2024 season started June 16, 2023, and the season will conclude with the San Francisco Bay race in July 2024. In response, on May 13, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulation; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA (89 FR 41368). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this sailing race event. During the comment period that ended June 12, 2024, we received no comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because in order to ensure the public and participant's safety we must establish the special local regulation before commencement of the Sail Grand Prix race activities starting July 12, 2024.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Captain of the Port Sector San Francisco (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with high-speed sailing vessel participating in the SailGP event create unpredictable maneuverability and have a demonstrated likelihood of capsizing during racing. This regulation will help prevent injuries and property damage that may be caused upon impact by the fast-moving vessels. This temporary special local regulation does not exempt racing vessels from any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations, including Nautical Rules of the Road.

Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta. Pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), the Commander of Coast Guard District 11 has delegated to the COTP San Francisco the responsibility of issuing such regulations.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published May 13, 2024. In the NPRM, the effective dates for the special local regulation were stated as July 11, 2024, through July 14, 2024. Since publication of the NPRM, event sponsors have removed the scheduled practice period on July 11, 2024, removing the need to enforce the regulated area on July 11, 2024. Additionally, the size of the regulated area has been adjusted to accommodate vessel traffic around Aquatic Park and Pier 45. The regulatory text of this rule has been amended accordingly from the proposed rule in the NPRM to reflect this change.

This rule establishes a special local regulation associated with the SailGP race event from noon to 5:30 p.m. each day from July 12, 2024, through July 14, 2024. The areas regulated by this special local regulation will be east of the Golden Gate Bridge, south of Alcatraz Island, west of Treasure Island, and in the vicinity of the city of San Francisco waterfront. The Coast Guard will establish an Official Practice Box Area, an Official Race Box Area, and a Spectator Area. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°48′24.3″ N, 122°27′53.5″ W; thence to 37°49′15.6″ N, 122°27′58.1″ W; thence to 37°49′28.9″ N, 122°25′52.1″ W; thence to 37°49′7.5″ N, 122°25′13″ W; thence to 37°48′49.6″ N, 122°25′28.9″ W; thence to 37°48′30.5″ N, 122°26′22.6″ W; thence along the shore to 37°48′26.9″ N, 122°26′50.5″ W and thence to the point of beginning.

Located within this footprint, there will be three separate regulated areas: Zone “A”, the Official Practice Box Areas; Zone “B”, the Official Race Box Area; and Zone “C”, the Spectator Area.

Zone “A”, the Official Practice Box Area, will be marked by colored visual markers. The position of these markers will be specified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least seven days prior to the event. Zone “A” will be used by the race and support vessels during the official practice period on July 12, 2024. Zone “A”, the Official Practice Box Area, will be enforced during the official practice from noon to 5:30 p.m. on July 12, 2024, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Excluding the public from entering Zone “A” is necessary to provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels within the area.

Zone “B”, the Official Race Box Area, will be marked by 12 or more colored visual markers. The position of these markers will be confirmed via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least three days prior to the event. Only designated Sail Grand Prix race, support, and VIP vessels will be permitted to enter Zone “B”. Zone “B”, the Official Race Box Area, will be enforced during the official race periods from noon to 5:30 p.m. on July 13, 2024, and from noon to 5:30 p.m. on July 14, 2024. Because of the hazards posed by the sailing competition, excluding non-race vessel traffic from Zone “B” is necessary to provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels within the area.

Zone “C”, the Spectator Area, will be within the special local regulation designated above and outside of Zone “B”, the Official Race Box Area. Zone “C” will be defined by latitude and longitude points per Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Zone “C” will be managed by marine event sponsor officials. Vessels will be prohibited from anchoring within the confines of Zone “C.”

The duration of the establishment of the special local regulation is needed to ensure the safety of vessels in these navigable waters during the scheduled practice and race periods. The temporary special local regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic adjacent to the city of San Francisco waterfront in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Island and prohibit vessels and persons not participating in the race event from entering the dedicated race area without permission of the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time of day of the special local regulation. With this special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to maintain commercial access to the ports through an alternate vessel traffic management scheme. The special local regulation is limited in duration and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the special local regulation, the effect of this rule will not be significant because local waterway users will be notified in advance via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the special local regulation will result in minimum impact. Therefore, mariners will be able to plan and transit outside of the periods of enforcement of the special local regulation. The entities most likely affected are commercial vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect owners and operators of commercial vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing for a limited duration. This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated in section V.A above. When the special local regulation is in effect, vessel traffic can pass safely around the regulated area. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation that will create regulated areas of limited size and cumulative duration of approximately 24 hours across four days. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraphs [L61] and [L63b] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 for the Dyes Inlet regulated area from 9 until 11 p.m. on July 26, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, § 165.1332, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Whaling Days event in Dyes Inlet, WA. The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332(b) apply to the activation and enforcement of the safety zone. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1332(c), no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within the safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Puget Sound or Designated Representative.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. If the Safety Zone is canceled earlier than listed in this regulation, notification will be provided via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This rule is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with removal of the pipelines. Removal of the pipelines has begun, and it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of the rule to provide notice of a proposal to create these safety zones, consider comments received, and publish a final rule.

In addition, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the safety zone must be in effect less than 30 days from now to serve its purpose and it would be contrary to the public interest to delay its effective date now that the hazardous activities have begun.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that hazards inherent in underwater pipeline removal activities necessitate provisions to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment while those activities are taking place. The activities giving rise to these hazards include the deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diving operations, and various other activities which create underwater hazards while people are working.

This rule is subject to overnight enforcement, starting from 8 p.m. of the first day, to 6 a.m., of the next day, each and every day it is in effect. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zones during the period in which the rule is subject to enforcement without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 1-800-874-2143. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866, 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, and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone covers less than 0.5 square mile area of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel in Texas. The temporary safety zone will be subject to enforcement for a period of nine consecutive hours, each day of the month of July. The rule does not completely prohibit vessel traffic within the waterway, and it allows mariners to request permission to enter the zones.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, does not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's provisions do not apply here.

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters in the Corpus Christi Bay. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by pipeline removal activities that may include deployment of heavy equipment which will obstruct vessel traffic, continuous diver's operations, and various other activities which create underwater hazards while people are working. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a), in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 165.1332 for the Mercer Island regulated area from 9 p.m. on July 13, 2024 until 1 a.m. on July 14, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, § 165.1332, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Mercer Island Celebration which encompasses portions of Lake Washington. The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332(b) apply to the activation and enforcement of the safety zone. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1332(c), no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within the safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Puget Sound or Designated Representative.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via marine information broadcasts and Local Notice to Mariners. If the Safety Zone is canceled earlier than listed in this regulation, notification will be provided via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be in place by July 6, 2024 to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with Hurricane Beryl and there is insufficient time between now and July 6, 2024 to provide notice of a proposal to create these safety zones, consider comments received, and publish a final rule.

In addition, the Coast Guard finds that good cause also exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because the safety zone must be in effect less than 30 days from now to serve their purpose and it would be contrary to the public interest to delay its effective date until after the hurricane makes lanfall.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined weather associated with the arrival of Hurricane Beryl makes this temporary safety zone necessary to prevent vessels from damaging themselves and port infrastructure such as piers, bridges, and facilities, and also help prevent the loss of life associated with vessel casualties.

This rule is subject to enforcement, starting from 2 p.m. on July 6, 2024, to 12 p.m., through July 15, 2024. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary safety zones during the period in which the rule is subject to enforcement without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 1-800-874-2143. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866, 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, and duration of the safety zones. The safety zone covers the entire Captain of the Port Zone from the Mexico/US Border north to the Colorado Locks as defined in 33 CFR 3.40-35. The temporary safety zones will be subject to enforcement for a period of 24 hours a day, from July 6, 2024, through July 15, 2024. The rule does not completely prohibit vessel traffic within the waterway, and it allows mariners to request permission to enter the zones.

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Zone from the Mexico/US Border north to the Colorado Locks as defined in 33 CFR 3.40-35. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by Hurricane Beryl. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a), in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

This final rule re-instates the harvest specifications and management measures that were in place for the 2023-2024 Pacific sardine fishing year (88 FR 41040, June 23, 2023) and that expired on June 30, 2024. These interim harvest specifications and management measures are effective until August 1, 2024, or until the 2024-2025 annual Pacific sardine specifications are effective, whichever date comes first. Proposed 2024-2025 Pacific sardine harvest specifications and management measures were published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2024 (89 FR 52005).

This action is necessary to comply with a June 28, 2024 order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the Court) in Oceana, Inc., v. Raimondo, et al., No. 5:21-cv-05407-VKD (N.D. Cal., filed July 14, 2021), which directs NMFS to implement interim specifications that are no less restrictive than the 2023-2024 specifications, and that take effect upon the expiration of the 2023-2024 specifications ( i.e., July 1, 2024) and remain in effect through August 1, 2024, unless NMFS promulgates 2024-2025 annual specifications before that date.

The interim specifications being implemented by this action can be found in table 1, and the additional regulations and management measures are listed below table 1.

This interim rule also temporarily re-instates the following management measures for commercial sardine harvest:

(1) The primary directed commercial fishery is closed.

(2) If landings in the live bait fishery reach 2,500 mt of Pacific sardine, then a 1 mt per-trip limit of sardine would apply to the live bait fishery.

(3) An incidental per-landing limit of 20 percent (by weight) of Pacific sardine applies to other coastal pelagic species (CPS) primary directed fisheries ( e.g., Pacific mackerel).

(4) If the ACT of 3,600 mt is attained, then a 1 mt per-trip limit of Pacific sardine landings would apply to all CPS fisheries ( i.e., 2) and 3) would no longer apply).

(5) An incidental per-landing allowance of 2 mt of Pacific sardine would apply to non-CPS fisheries until the ACL is reached.

All sources of catch, including any exempted fishing permit (EFP) set-asides, the live bait fishery, and other minimal sources of harvest, such as incidental catch in CPS and non-CPS fisheries and minor directed fishing, will be accounted for against the ACT and ACL.

The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce when catch reaches the management measure limits, as well as any resulting changes to allowable incidental catch percentages. Additionally, to ensure that the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will make announcements through other means available, including emails to fishermen, processors, and State fishery management agencies.

NMFS has the authority to implement annual harvest specifications and management measures for Pacific sardine under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this interim specifications rule is necessary to comply with a Court Order.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that good cause exists to issue this rule without advance notice in a proposed rule or the opportunity for public comment ( see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) and to make the rule effective immediately without providing a 30-day delay after publication ( see 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). NMFS is obligated to implement these measures immediately to comply with the Court's June 28, 2024, Order, which “directs NMFS to implement interim specifications effective July 1, 2024 that are no less restrictive than the 2023-2024 specifications.” To comply with that Order, NMFS must implement this rule at the earliest possible date. NMFS does not have discretion to implement measures that do not comply with the order in substance or timing. Providing prior notice and an opportunity for comment and delaying the effective date of this rule for 30 days after publication is therefore unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists to make this interim rule effective immediately.

This final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.