Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601-695, at 601(n), 607; 21 U.S.C. 451-470, at 453(h), 457) (the Acts), FSIS develops and implements regulations to require that the labels of meat and poultry products are truthful and not misleading. Under the Acts, the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated this authority to FSIS, must approve the labels of meat and poultry products before the products can enter commerce (21 U.S.C. 601(d); 21 U.S.C. 457(c)). 1

FSIS allows some labels to be generically approved if they bear all applicable mandatory labeling features, 2 do not contain special statements or claims as defined at 9 CFR 412.1(e)(1), and otherwise comply with the Agency's labeling regulations (see 9 CFR 412.2). Generically approved labels do not need to be submitted to FSIS for approval before they can be used on products in commerce. However, a label with a special statement or claim (9 CFR 412.1(c)(3) and (e)) must be submitted to FSIS for approval before it may be used on a product distributed in commerce.

Animal-raising and environment-related claims are voluntary “special statements and claims” (9 CFR 412.1(e)). Special statements and claims are statements, claims, logos, trademarks, and other symbols as defined in 9 CFR 412.1(e). Special statements and claims include those claims not defined in the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations or the Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book; “Natural” claims; health claims; ingredient and processing method claims; structure-function claims; claims regarding the raising of animals ( e.g., “no antibiotics administered”; products labeled as organic; and instructional or disclaimer statements concerning pathogens).

FSIS does not require such claims to appear on product labels. However, establishments may voluntarily add animal-raising or environment-related claims to their labels if they do not render the product misbranded. Examples of animal-raising claims include but are not limited to: “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Grass Fed,” “Free-Range,” and “Raised Without the Use of Hormones.” Examples of environment-related claims include but are not limited to: “Raised using Regenerative Agriculture Practices,” and “Environmentally Responsible.” FSIS evaluates labels bearing such claims on a case-by-case basis by reviewing the animal production protocol submitted with the label approval application. FSIS approves the label if the documentation supports the claim made, if the claim is otherwise truthful and not misleading, if the claim (including any qualifying information) is prominently and conspicuously displayed on the label, and if the claim does not otherwise render the product misbranded under the Acts.

At establishments that label products with animal-raising or environment-related claims, FSIS inspectors routinely verify that establishments maintain compliant label records on file. In addition, inspectors may also take appropriate regulatory control action, such as product retention, when they identify misbranded product. FSIS could also rescind approval of false or misleading labels per 9 CFR 500.8.

On October 5, 2016, FSIS announced the availability of and requested comments on its “Labeling Guideline on Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for Label Submission” (81 FR 68933). FSIS published the guideline to advise establishments on the type of documentation they should submit to support animal-raising claims on meat or poultry product labels. FSIS uses this documentation to determine whether these claims are truthful and not misleading.

On December 27, 2019, FSIS announced the availability of an updated version of the guideline (84 FR 71359). FSIS updated the guideline in response to public comments on the 2016 version and a petition for rulemaking. In the 2019 Federal Register notification, FSIS specifically requested comments on the label claim “free range” for poultry products in response to the petition. The comments and FSIS' responses are summarized below. After reviewing updated scientific information, FSIS sampling data, askFSIS questions, public comments, petitions, and other meetings with Agency stakeholders, FSIS has revised the guideline to improve readability, better assist establishments with substantiating animal-raising or environment-related claims, and reduce consumer confusion regarding such claims.

As discussed below, FSIS strongly encourages the use of third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims, given the limits of FSIS jurisdiction. Third-party certification of animal-raising or environment-related claims helps ensure that such claims are truthful and not misleading by having an independent organization verify that standards are being met on the farm for the raising of animals and the use of environmentally supportive practices. This guidance document identifies criteria that ensures a third-party certification organization is credible and reliable. The Agency evaluates each third-party certification program to assess its suitability for substantiating these types of claims. The revised guideline is posted at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/fsis-guidelines.

FSIS received over nine thousand comments in response to the previous guideline from individuals, animal advocacy groups, and industry groups on the previous version of this guideline that argued that living or raising conditions claims ( e.g., “free range” and “pasture-raised”) could be considered misleading because they do not always match consumer expectations. Many commenters suggested that to avoid being considered misleading and to better align with consumer expectations, FSIS should define these claims. Lastly, many of the commenters stated that claims like “free range” should not be considered synonymous with other claims ( i.e., “free-roaming,” “pasture-fed,” “pasture grown,” “pasture-raised,” and “meadow raised”). Many commenters argued that the production practices associated with these claims are fundamentally different and have different animal welfare implications.

FSIS also received three petitions for rulemaking requesting changes to the Agency's guidance on animal-raising claims. In January 2016, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) submitted a petition for rulemaking  3 requesting that FSIS amend its poultry products labeling regulations to define “free range” and to establish substantiation requirements for approval of the claim. The petition specifically asked that FSIS prescribe standards for “free range” claims to require that the birds are provided with (1) outdoor access during daylight hours daily for at least 51 percent of their lives; (2) outdoor space where at least half of the area has a vegetative cover; (3) multiple, large access points to the outdoors; and (4) natural or artificial shelter in the outdoor area. The petition also requested that FSIS require that applications for “free range,” “free-roaming,” and “range grown” labels include a signed affidavit accompanied by a detailed animal care protocol and photographs that illustrate that the birds were raised under conditions that qualify for a “free range,” “free-roaming,” or “range grown” claim.

AWI argued that improperly labeled products could enter the market because FSIS does not define “free range” and its synonymous terms. AWI claimed that the free-range claim can be used in false and misleading ways that may be injurious to individual consumers and the broader market for properly packaged poultry products. The petition included 23 exhibits, consumer expectation data, askFSIS questions, and “free-range” labels approved by FSIS that AWI believed should not have been approved.

In December 2019, FSIS issued an interim response to the petition  4 explaining that it updated the guideline to add information on the types of documentation typically needed to substantiate a “free range” claim on a poultry product. FSIS also explained that it requested comments on the Agency's approach for approving “free range” claims in the labeling of poultry products in the 2019 Federal Register notification accompanying the updated guideline.

In March 2023, Perdue Farms, LLC (Perdue) submitted a petition for rulemaking  5 requesting that FSIS remove “pasture-raised” as a claim synonymous with “free range.” Perdue's petition also requested that FSIS define “pasture-raised” to apply only to chickens that spend the majority of their lives physically on “pasture,” and “pasture” as a majority of rooted-in-soil vegetative cover.

Perdue's petition argued that consumers and industry actors perceive “pasture-raised” and “free range” as separate classifications, with the former as a more premium claim. In addition, the petition argued that making these changes would avoid false and misleading marketing of “free range” chickens that have only access to the outdoors and “pasture-raised” chickens that physically spend their life on a pasture. The petition contained consumer survey data to support their arguments. FSIS received 15 comments from third-party certifying organizations, establishments, industry groups, consumer groups, and members of Congress in support of the petition.

Additionally, in July 2022, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) submitted a petition for rulemaking  6 requesting that FSIS stop its review and approval of animal-raising claims on food products. Specifically, PETA requested that FSIS amend 9 CFR 412.1 to no longer allow for approval of claims regarding the raising of animals on product labels. PETA also asked FSIS to rescind its guidelines regarding FSIS' approval of animal-raising claims on labels.

PETA argued that FSIS lacks jurisdiction to regulate on-farm, animal-raising activities; therefore, FSIS' review, approval, and allowance of animal-raising labels exceeds its statutory authority. According to PETA, because FSIS does not have on-farm jurisdiction, establishments can make misleading or false claims concerning how animals are raised, leading to consumer confusion. The petition included examples of what PETA argued were misleading animal-raising claims that FSIS approved. FSIS didn't receive any public comments on the petition.

FSIS has updated its animal-raising claims guidance in response to the concerns raised by commenters and petitioners. FSIS has, however, determined not to codify in its regulations any specific animal-raising claims definitions at this time. 7 FSIS maintains that animal production practices vary and are continuously developing and that keeping a current list of codified allowable labeling claims would be impractical.

Codifying definitions for animal-raising claims could also hinder the development of new or improved animal production practices. Producers consistently innovate practices to improve the raising of livestock or poultry from birth to slaughter. Likewise, consumer expectations of animal-raising claims consistently evolve. If animal-raising claims are codified, producers that improve their animal-raising practices could lose the benefit of making certain claims, even if the improved practices better align with changing consumer expectations for such claims. For example, producer and consumer understanding of the animal welfare claim “humanely raised” have changed over time. Continued changes in on-farm practices, animal care prior to slaughter, and evolving consumer expectations mean that the understanding of this claim will continue to evolve in the future. Codifying such claims could, therefore, stifle innovation.

Under FSIS' current policy, FSIS Labeling and Program Delivery Staff (LPDS) generally only approves animal welfare or living or raising conditions claims if establishments define their animal welfare or living conditions claims directly on the label. Alternatively, if the establishment has a website where the claim is defined, it may provide the website address on the label rather than directly define the claim. Also under current policy, for poultry products, establishments do not need to include additional explanation for the living or raising conditions claims “Free Range,” “Free Roaming,” “Pasture Fed,” “Pasture Grown,” “Pasture Raised,” or “Meadow Raised” on the product labels. However, establishments must provide specific documentation to substantiate such claims. This policy helps ensure that consumers are not confused or misled by such claims.

FSIS has updated the guidance to strongly encourage the use of third-party certifiers to substantiate animal-raising claims. As stated in the revised guideline, labels that truthfully display a third-party certifier's name, logo, and website do not need to further define their certified animal-raising claims on the product label as discussed above, provided that an explanation of the claim and the relevant standards and definitions are clearly posted on the certifier's website.

Additionally, the guideline now strongly encourages establishments to provide additional documentation to the LPDS to substantiate label claims like “pasture-raised,” “pasture-fed,” “pasture grown,” and “meadow-raised.” Specifically, FSIS encourages establishments to provide written documentation describing that animals are raised on pasture, i.e., land where the majority is rooted in vegetative cover with grass or other plants, for the majority of their life span from birth until slaughter.

FSIS is not revising the guideline or its regulations to require applications for “free range,” “free-roaming,” and “range grown” labels to include a signed affidavit, accompanied by a detailed animal care protocol and photographs that illustrate that the birds were raised under conditions that qualify for a “free range,” “free-roaming,” or “range grown” claim. To substantiate an animal-raising claim, establishments provide LPDS with documentation that supports the claim.

The kind and amount of supporting documentation depends on the claim and could vary according to circumstances. For example, an establishment would need to submit the following documentation to substantiate a “cage free” labeling claim for LPDS approval: (1) A detailed written description explaining controls for ensuring that the animals are raised in a manner consistent with the meaning of the living or raising conditions claim that is valid from birth to slaughter or the period of raising being referenced by the claim; (2) A signed and dated document describing how the animals are raised to support that the claims are not false or misleading; (3) A written description of the product tracing and segregation mechanism from time of slaughter or further processing through packaging and wholesale or retail distribution; and (4) A written description of the identification, control, and segregation of non-conforming animals/product. FSIS comprehensively evaluates these label applications on a case-by-case basis.

FSIS will continue to evaluate animal-raising claims and approve labeling that complies with the Acts. Stopping FSIS review and approval of all animal-raising claims, as suggested by one petitioner, would effectively prohibit the display of such claims, including those that are truthful and not misleading. This action would, therefore, raise significant free speech issues and could be considered unconstitutional.

In April 2022, Science magazine published an article entitled “Policy Reform for antibiotic use claims in livestock,” co-authored by the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at the George Washington University (GWU) School of Public Health and Food In-Depth (FoodID). 8 The article reported on a study, where the urine of beef cattle designated for the raised without antibiotics market, specifically for a “No Antibiotics Ever” program, was tested for 17 antibiotics commonly administered in feed and water using the FoodID rapid immunoassay. According to the article, the study showed that 15 percent of the cattle feedlots sampled had one or more positive result. A subset of the urine samples that screened positive were subsequently tested in a third-party reference lab. Drug residues were confirmed and quantified in 24 of the 26 samples.

In June 2023, USDA announced that it would be implementing a multi-step effort aimed at strengthening the substantiation of animal-raising and environment-related claims. 9 FSIS and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) announced that the two Agencies would be conducting a sampling project to assess antibiotic residues in cattle destined for the raised without antibiotics market.

In September 2023, FSIS and ARS announced that the Agencies began exploratory sampling to assess whether antibiotics residues are detected in cattle intended for the raised without antibiotics market. 10 FSIS collected liver and kidney samples from 189 eligible cattle at 79 slaughter establishments in 34 States, and ARS analyzed the samples using a method that targeted more than 180 veterinary drugs from various major classes of antibiotics. For the majority (74%) of these drugs, the method used by ARS is capable of detecting the drug at levels as low as 1 part per billion (ppb) in the animal tissue, with almost all drugs (95%) being detectable at or below 10 ppb.

The exploratory sampling study found residues of antibiotic drugs in the liver or kidney of 37 raised without antibiotics cattle (equivalent to 20% of the total number of animals sampled) originating from 27 slaughter establishments. There were 46 residue detections in these 37 animals. Residues from 10 different types of drugs were detected (tulathromycin, monensin, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, tetracycline, penicillin, tildipirosin, tilmicosin, gamithromycin, and sulfamethazine).

FSIS sent letters to establishments where antibiotic residues were found in cattle during the study. The letters notified the establishments about the positive test results, noted that the establishments may have produced misbranded products, and recommended that the establishments take actions to prevent further misbranded product from entering commerce. FSIS also notified the establishments that the results from the study would inform future policy changes, and that the Agency may elect to collect and analyze future samples that could be used to take a regulatory action. FSIS is still considering these issues and will inform the public of any future changes to label policy or Agency sampling.

In response to the GWU/FoodID study in Science magazine and the FSIS/ARS sampling program results, FSIS has updated its recommendations in the guideline on how establishments substantiate negative antibiotic use claims. Specifically, the guideline now strongly encourages meat and poultry establishments to substantiate such claims by implementing a routine sampling and testing program to test for the use of antibiotics in animals prior to slaughter. In the alternative, the guideline strongly encourages that establishments obtain third party certification for negative antibiotic use claims from certifiers that routinely perform antibiotic sampling and testing as a condition of certification.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) submitted petitions for rulemaking in April and July 2023. 11 EWG requested that FSIS: (1) reject climate-related and environment-related labeling claims like “low-carbon beef” and “climate-friendly” made directly by establishments, (2) require third-party certification for climate claims, and (3) require a numerical carbon disclosure whenever such claims are made.

EWG argued that many environmental welfare climate claims ( e.g., Low-Carbon Beef, Net-Zero, Carbon Neutral, Carbon Negative, Climate Neutral, Net-Zero Carbon, Climate Positive, Climate Neutral, and Carbon Positive) are inherently misleading. According to EWG, most consumers believe these claims reflect reductions in actual greenhouse gas emissions in-house, not offsets of these emissions through changes in farming practices by others. The petitioner stated that when consumers are told that claims could be made by reliance on offsets instead of actual emissions reductions, most consumers report feeling misled. 12

In response to this petition, FSIS has updated the guideline to explain that establishments are strongly encouraged to provide additional documentation, such as environmental data or studies, to FSIS to support and substantiate their environment-related claims. This change to the environment-related claims guidance will help ensure that claims are truthful and not misleading. FSIS recommends that establishments contact LPDS to discuss potential environment-related claims and the documentation needed to support such claims before submitting a label application for prior approval.

Under FSIS' current policy, establishments define their environment-related claims directly on the label. Alternatively, if the establishment has a website where the claim is defined, it may provide the website address (where the relevant standards are posted) on the label rather than directly define the claim. This policy helps ensure that consumers are not confused or misled by such claims.

FSIS also updated the guideline to strongly encourage establishments using environment-related claims to use third-party certifiers. When label claims are certified by a third-party organization, which posts the standards used to define the claim conspicuously on its website, establishments do not need to include statements that fully explain their claims on their labels.

FSIS' guideline now strongly encourages establishments to use a third-party organization to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims. For example, FSIS recommends that third party certification should be performed by an organization independent of the establishment paying for the certification, that the third-party organization should routinely audit, validate, and verify claims on the label to ensure they meet related standards. Moreover, FSIS recommends that the third-party certifier conducts testing for raised without antibiotics claims. In response to concerns that third-party certification is costly for small and very small establishments, FSIS is exploring options to determine whether there are lower-cost third-party certification programs, including those offered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), that meet the recommended criteria for third-party certifiers included in the revised guideline.

FSIS made the following minor changes to the guideline in response to askFSIS questions and meetings with stakeholders:

• FSIS clarified that when establishments carry forward an animal-raising claim to a multi-ingredient product, the claim needs to include qualifying language such as “used,” “raised,” or “made with” to make clear that the animal-raising claim is specific to the meat or poultry component in the multi-ingredient product.

• FSIS added examples of common diet claims and added further guidance on the use of “Vegetarian Fed” and “No Animal Byproducts” claims to clarify that these claims mean that animals are solely fed plant-based feeds and no animal products.

• FSIS created a new email address for establishments to use when submitting requests to add new supplier documentation for a previously approved label without having to resubmit the label for another sketch approval.

• FSIS separated “Animal Welfare” and “Environmental Stewardship” sections and renamed “Environmental Stewardship” to “Environment-Related” to better clarify the claims and the documentation to be submitted for each type of claim.

• FSIS made several changes to the formatting, language, and organizational structure of the guideline to improve readability.

As explained above, FSIS also made some significant changes to the guideline in response to petitions and public comments on the last version of the guideline.

• FSIS updated documentation that establishments are strongly encouraged to submit to LPDS to substantiate claims like “Pasture Raised,” “Pasture Fed,” “Pasture Grown,” and “Meadow Raised.”

• FSIS recommended criteria for third-party organizations that certify animal-raising or environment-related claims.

• FSIS further emphasized that, to substantiate a third-party certification claim, establishments should provide FSIS with a copy of their current certificate.

• FSIS further emphasized that if a claim was certified by a third-party organization, the Agency will approve the label bearing the claim only if it includes the certifying entity's name, website address (where the relevant standards can be found), and logo, when the organization has a logo.

• FSIS added language strongly encouraging establishments to substantiate negative antibiotic use claims by instituting a routine sampling program to test for the use of antibiotics in animals prior to slaughter or by using a third-party certifier who performs routine antibiotic sampling and testing as part of their certification standards.

• FSIS added language stating that establishments are strongly encouraged to provide FSIS with relevant data or studies ( e.g., soil/land variation or air quality studies and results) to substantiate environment-related claims.

• FSIS added language strongly encouraging establishments to use third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims, given the limits of FSIS jurisdiction.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS will also make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS can provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service that provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password-protect their accounts.

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

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at https://www.usda.gov/forms/electronic-forms, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

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

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

The proposed Revision 3 to RG 5.62 was issued with a temporary identification of DG-5080 (ADAMS Accession No. ML23198A191).

This revision provides additional guidance on physical security event notifications, written follow-up reports, and recordkeeping of security events and other security-related conditions adverse to quality. These new and updated requirements are part of the NRC's final rule, entitled “Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications” (hereafter the Enhanced Weapons rule), that was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2023 (88 FR 15864). These provisions are found in the NRC's regulations under title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), §§ 73.1200, 73.1205, and 10 CFR 73.1210.

Revision 3 to RG 5.62 provides examples, considerations, and guidance to assist licensees and their security personnel in understanding their responsibilities in implementing the provisions of §§ 73.1200, 73.1205, and 73.1210.

The NRC published a notice of availability of DG-5080 in the Federal Register on October 27, 2023 (88 FR 73767) for a 45-day public comment period. The public comment period closed on December 11, 2023. The NRC staff made changes to RG 5.62 in response to public comments. The NRC staff's responses to these public comments on DG-5080 are available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML23299A187.

As noted in the Federal Register on December 9, 2022 (87 FR 75671), this document is being published in the “Rules” section of the Federal Register to comply with publication requirements under 1 CFR chapter I.

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

Issuance of Revision 3 to RG 5.62 does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 72.62, “Backfitting,” 10 CFR 70.76, “Backfitting,” and 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093B087); does not constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4; and does not affect the issue finality of any approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certificates, and Approvals for Nuclear Powerplants,” because, as explained in Revision 3 to RG 5.62, licensees are not required to comply with the positions set forth in the RG.

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

I. Background

The Freedom of Information Act permits Federal agencies to recover certain costs they incur in processing requests filed under its authority. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(i). To do so, they are required to publish a schedule of the fees charged for those costs in accordance with guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget, (52 FR 10012 (March 27, 1987), revised 85 FR 81955 (Dec. 17, 2020)). The rules governing DNFSB's collection of fees appear in its FOIA regulations at 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6), and on November 15, 2023, DNFSB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to amend the rules to use the actual salary rate(s) ( i.e., basic hourly rate of pay plus an additional 16%) of personnel searching for and reviewing records in response to FOIA requests as the basis for calculating fees.

With today's action, DNFSB amends the following subsections of its regulation governing fees charged for responding to requests for records (10 CFR 1703.107):

A. 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(1): Changes the definition of “Direct Costs” by replacing the phrase “average salary and projected benefits costs of agency employees” with “the hourly salary and projected benefits costs of agency personnel.”

B. 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(2)(i): Changes the description of the fees charged to commercial use requesters by replacing the phrase “average salary and projected benefits costs of agency employees” with “the hourly salary and projected benefits costs of agency personnel.”

C. 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(2)(ii): Changes the phrase “the Board's charges” to “the DNFSB's charges” and restores the last sentence of the paragraph, which was inadvertently omitted from the proposed notice of rulemaking, i.e., “[T]here shall be no charge for the first 100 pages of duplication.”

D. 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(2)(iii): Changes the description of the fees charged to “other” requesters, i.e., those who are not commercial requesters nor representatives of the news media or educational or noncommercial scientific institutions, by replacing the phrase “average hourly pay rate for Board employees, plus the average hourly projected benefits cost” with “hourly salary and projected benefits costs of the agency personnel who search for records in response to a request.”

E. 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)(i): Replaces the existing paragraph, which requires publication of an annual update of a schedule of FOIA fees that includes a statement of the average hourly pay rates and average hourly projected benefit costs of agency employees, with a new paragraph that lists the FOIA response costs DNFSB may seek to recover and bases the calculation of personnel costs on the hourly pay rate (plus 16% to cover benefits costs). DNFSB has replaced the words “employee” and “employees” with the word “personnel” to ensure that it is able to recover the cost of document search and review time spent by contract workers as well as federal employees, in accordance with the OMB Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines, 52 FR 10012, 10018, 7. Fees To Be Charged-General. The replacement of the word “employee” to “personnel” in the final rule so that it includes contractors is in keeping with the purpose of the proposed rule to align the fees with the direct costs incurred by DNFSB.

DNFSB received two sets of comments on its proposed rulemaking.

One commenter noted that the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(2)(ii) failed to include the last sentence of the existing regulation barring the agency from charging the covered requesters for the costs of the first 100 pages of duplication. This comment was well taken: the omission of the sentence containing the exemption from duplicating costs was unintentional, and as noted above, the sentence has been reincorporated in the final text of the regulation published today.

The second commenter expressed concern that the proposed amendments did not explicitly take account of the statutory prohibition from seeking fees for responses to requests that are not made within the statutory time limit. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(viii). DNFSB agrees with the commenter's assertion that the regulations must take account of FOIA's prohibition of fees for responses made out of time. It does not agree, however, that the changes to the proposal suggested by the commenter are necessary because the regulations already contain a provision barring the collection of fees for untimely responses. Specifically, 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(2)(iv) states that: “The Board will not assess any fees if it has failed to meet its deadlines in § 1703.108,” which sets out the time limits within which the agency is to respond to perfected FOIA requests.

This final rule pertains to the Board's policies and practices for processing FOIA requests and does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Therefore, no analysis is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 804. It will not result in: an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

This update to the Board's FOIA regulations contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and it does not require or request information from members of the public. As a result, this rulemaking is not covered by the restrictions of the PRA.

These regulations meet the applicable standards set forth in Executive Order 12988.

According to Executive Order 13132, agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. These amendments to the Board's FOIA regulations affect only how the Board responds to requests for information and have no preemptive effect on state, tribal, or local government laws or otherwise have federalism implications.

This is a rule under the Congressional Review Act. The Board will send a copy of this rulemaking to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amends section 1703.107 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read 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 The Boeing Company Model 767-300 airplanes with certain line numbers. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2024 (89 FR 30284). The NPRM was prompted by a report that some Model 767-300 series airplanes that had been modified to operate in a freighter configuration by the manufacturer are missing an electrical support bracket for a wire bundle in the main equipment center. The missing electrical support bracket affects wire separation configuration requirements for fuel quantity indicating system wiring and could result in an electrical fault condition. In addition, the missing electrical support bracket is needed for some Model 767-300 cargo airplanes to accomplish the service bulletin required by the alternative actions in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of AD 2020-18-16, Amendment 39-21237 (85 FR 62993, October 6, 2020).

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing an electrical support bracket and re-installing wire bundles. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent possible ignition sources in the fuel tank due to an electrical fault, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from two commenters.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, supported the NPRM without change.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that installing winglets under Supplemental Type Certificate ST01920SE does not affect compliance with the proposed actions. The FAA agrees. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0261, Revision 1, dated August 17, 2022. This material specifies procedures for installing an electrical support bracket in the main equipment center and re-installing wire bundles. 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 18 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024 (89 FR 37144). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-67, dated October 4, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (Transport Canada AD CF 2023-67) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that at lavatory and galley locations within the airplane, incorrect terminal lugs have been installed which are not compatible with the associated wire gauge.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require removing and replacing existing lug terminals at various lavatory and galley locations, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-67. The FAA is issuing this AD to address incorrect terminal lugs that may become loose causing a loss of electromagnetic interference protection, which could result in false alarms of the lavatory smoke detectors, false alarms of low crew oxygen pressure, loss of automatic control of automatic cabin temperature control, and loss of lavatory flush. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in an increase in crew workload, including diversions and descent to below 10,000 feet or the lowest safe altitude.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1289.

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

The FAA received an additional comment from an individual, who requested to be informed as to how the FAA will continue coordination between the FAA and Transport Canada to ensure the effectiveness of the AD, and to address any emerging issues related to the replacement of terminal lugs.

The FAA continuously evaluates operator and manufacturer reports and other data to promote safe type certification and production. Since this commenter did not ask for a change to the final rule, no change has been made to this AD in response to this request.

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

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-67 specifies procedures for removing existing terminal lugs and installing new terminal lugs at lavatories A, C1, C2, C3, D2, D4, and E, and galleys G2A, G2G, and G4, including replacing the ground wires for new terminal lugs if the ground wire length is not sufficient; and installing the service bulletin incorporation placards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-22-13, Amendment 39-22597 (88 FR 82246, November 24, 2023) (AD 2023-22-13), AD 2023-22-13 applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. AD 2023-22-13 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-22-13 to address reduced structural integrity and reduced control of the airplane due to the failure of system components. AD 2023-22-13 specifies that accomplishing the revision required by that AD terminates certain requirements of AD 2014-16-23, Amendment 39-17947 (79 FR 52545, September 4, 2014) (AD 2014-16-23). This AD therefore continues to allow that terminating action.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 13, 2024 (89 FR 41361). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0033, dated January 31, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, (EASA AD 2024-0033) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require certain actions in AD 2023-22-13 and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0033. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity and reduced control of the airplane due to the failure of system components.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1290.

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0033. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2023-0063, dated March 20, 2023, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 29, 2023 (88 FR 82246, November 24, 2023).

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

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-22-13 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0246, dated December 12, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0246), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 BB, AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, and AS 355 N helicopters.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2024 (89 FR 26794). The NPRM was prompted by reports of debonding on the stainless steel leading edge protection of certain part-numbered MRBs. The NPRM proposed to require repetitively tap inspecting the MRB and, depending on the results, taking corrective action. The NPRM also prohibited installing an affected MRB on any helicopter unless its requirements are met, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0246.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the debonding of the MRB leading edge protection. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a significant unbalance of the main rotor, a high level of vibration, failure of the main rotor, failure of the main gearbox, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

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

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

EASA AD 2022-0246 requires repetitively tap inspecting affected MRBs and, depending on findings, either repairing or replacing the MRB. For certain helicopters, EASA AD 2022-0246 prohibits installing an affected MRB unless it is a serviceable part as defined within and is inspected following installation. For other certain helicopters, EASA AD 2022-0246 prohibits installing an affected MRB.

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

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS350-05.01.07 and No. AS355-05.00.91, both Revision 0 and dated December 6, 2022. This material describes procedures for tap inspecting the stainless steel leading edge protection of the MRB and, depending on the results, repairing or sending the MRB for repair to Airbus Helicopters. This material also specifies sending certain information to Airbus Helicopters.

EASA AD 2022-0246 applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas this AD does not because that model is not FAA-type certificated.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 405 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Tap inspecting affected MRBs for disbonding takes up to approximately 1 work-hour (up to three MRBs per helicopter) for an estimated cost of up to $85 per helicopter and $34,425 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Replacing a blade takes approximately 6 work-hours and parts cost up to approximately $84,000 for an estimated cost of up to $84,510 per MRB. The FAA has no data to determine the cost of or the number of helicopters that might need the MRB repaired.

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 The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2024 (89 FR 20555). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating a production audit by the design approval holder found that the design of the NEADS cover plate assembly did not comply with the requirements for nitrogen generation system certification (14 CFR 25.981). It was discovered that the NEADS cover plate assembly attached to a certain vent stringer in the center wing tank was installed without a designed electrical bond for electrostatic dissipation. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing electrical bonding and grounding, installing the cover plate assembly with new fasteners, and revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the accumulation of electrostatic charge in the cover plate assembly and float valve assembly during airplane refueling, which could lead to electrostatic discharge to the surrounding structure. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in result in an ignition source inside the fuel tank and subsequent fire or explosion.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change and a comment from United Airlines who reviewed the NPRM and provided no additional comment. The FAA received an additional comment from Boeing. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Boeing requested the unsafe condition be revised to clarify when the accumulation of electrostatic charge on the vent float valve assembly could occur. Specifically, Boeing requested adding the words “during airplane refueling” to the unsafe condition because the threat of accumulation is only present during refueling operation when charged fuel is introduced to the fuel tank from the airport refueling infrastructure, and that other airplane operations such as flight do not introduce a threat to the installation.

The FAA agrees with clarifying the unsafe condition. The FAA has revised the Background section and paragraph (e) to clarify that the FAA is issuing this AD to address the accumulation of electrostatic charge in the cover plate assembly and float valve assembly during airplane refueling, which could lead to electrostatic discharge to the surrounding structure.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-47A0007 RB, dated November 21, 2023. This material specifies procedures for removing the cover plate assembly and its attached float valve assembly, installing electrical bonding and grounding, measuring the bonding resistance between the bolt heads/cover plate assembly/float valve assembly mounting flange and the vent stringer No. 15 and between the nuts and the cover plate assembly, and installing the cover plate assembly with new fasteners. This material also specifies revising the operator's maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating new airworthiness limitations (AWLs). 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 292 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 1, 2024, the “Airman Certification Standards and Practical Test Standards for Airmen; Incorporation by Reference” final rule published in the Federal Register , effective on May 31, 2024. 1 That final rule adopted several amendments to parts 61, 63, and 65 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by incorporating by reference (IBR) certain Airman Certification Standards (ACS) and Practical Test Standards (PTS), which serve as the testing standards for airman certificates and rating practical tests and proficiency checks. The final rule inadvertently and incorrectly set forth certain regulatory text in 14 CFR part 61 that the FAA did not intend to include. Specifically, the FAA adopted the requirement for instrument proficiency checks (IPC) under § 61.57(d) to consist of the areas of operation (AOO) contained in the applicable ACS, as appropriate to the rating held, intending to remove the list of AOOs set forth in § 61.57(d)(1)(i) through (vi). 2 As discussed in the final rule, the applicable ACS sets forth the AOOs to be included in the IPC with an accompanying task table in the appendix.

The preamble to both the NPRM and the final rule clearly communicated that the final rule intended to remove § 61.57(d)(1)(i) through (vi) ( i.e., the AOOs) because the ACS incorporated by reference would set forth the AOOs in the appendix task table. 3 However, the amendatory instructions to the final rule inadvertently maintained § 61.57(d)(1)(i) through (vi), which duplicates the AOO tasking table in the applicable ACS, as incorporated by reference. This correction remedies that error by removing those paragraphs.

Accordingly, 14 CFR part 61 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Moritz Memorial Airport, Beloit, KS, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-1119 in the Federal Register (89 FR 35027; May 1, 2024) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Beloit, KS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Moritz Memorial Airport, Beloit, KS; corrects the state associated with the airport from IA to KS; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class D airspace at Perot Field/Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The airspace at Perot Field/Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, TX, was reviewed as part a biennial airspace review. The airspace review revealed that the name and geographic coordinates of the airport had been changed, but the airspace legal description had not been updated. This action updates the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is an administrative change and does not affect the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class D airspace at Perot Field/Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, TX, by updating the name (previously Fort Worth Alliance Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; updates the header of the airspace legal description to Fort Worth, TX, (previously Fort Worth Alliance Airport, TX) to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2P, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; removes the city associated with Stage Coach Hills Airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2P; and changes the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” and “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Notice to Air Missions” and “Chart Supplement”.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological material. In certain limited circumstances, the CPIA authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603). The emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years where it is determined that the emergency condition continues to apply with respect to the covered material (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3)). These restrictions may also be continued, in whole or in part, pursuant to an agreement concluded within the meaning of the CPIA (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(4)).

On February 7, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a final rule, CBP Decision (CBP Dec.) 20-01, in the Federal Register (85 FR 7209), which amended § 12.104g(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(b)) to reflect the imposition of import restrictions on certain archaeological material and ethnological material of Yemen under the emergency protection provisions of the CPIA.

Following imposition of the emergency import restrictions, the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Yemen  1 under the CPIA to continue the emergency import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological material of Yemen through April 15, 2029, with modifications to the Designated List. This period may be extended for additional periods, each extension not to exceed 5 years, if it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); § 12.104g(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(a))).

Under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1), the United States must make certain determinations before entering into an agreement to impose import restrictions under 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). On November 18, 2022, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendation by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made the determinations required under the statute with respect to certain archaeological and ethnological material originating in Yemen that is described in the Designated List set forth below in this document.

These determinations include the following: (1) that the cultural patrimony of Yemen is in jeopardy from the pillage of archaeological material, dating from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1773, and ethnological material representing Yemen's cultural heritage, ranging in date from approximately A.D. 1517 through 1918 (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(A)); (2) that the Republic of Yemen Government has taken measures consistent with the Convention to protect its cultural patrimony (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(B)); (3) that import restrictions imposed by the United States would be of substantial benefit in deterring a serious situation of pillage and remedies less drastic are not available (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(C)); and (4) that the application of import restrictions as set forth in this final rule is consistent with the general interests of the international community in the interchange of cultural property among nations for scientific, cultural, and educational purposes (19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(1)(D)). The Assistant Secretary also found that the material included in the determinations meets the statutory definition of “archaeological or ethnological material of the State Party” (19 U.S.C. 2601(2)).

On August 30, 2023, the Governments of the United States and the Republic of Yemen signed a bilateral agreement, “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Yemen Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Yemen,” (the Agreement) pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 2602(a)(2). The Agreement entered into force on April 15, 2024, following the exchange of diplomatic notes, and modifies the previously imposed emergency import restrictions on archaeological material dated from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1773, as well as certain ethnological material of Yemeni cultural heritage from A.D. 1517 through 1918. A list of the categories of archaeological and ethnological material subject to the import restrictions is set forth later in this document.

Import restrictions on the archaeological and ethnological material of Yemen previously reflected in § 12.104g(b) will be continued through the Agreement without interruption. Accordingly, § 12.104g(a) of the CBP regulations is being amended to indicate that restrictions have been imposed pursuant to the Agreement, and the emergency import restrictions on certain categories of archaeological and ethnological material of Yemen are being removed from § 12.104g(b), as those restrictions are now encompassed in § 12.104g(a). Pursuant to the Agreement, and consistent with the CPIA, the Designated List originally published with the emergency restrictions in CBP Dec. 20-01 is being amended to correct certain typographical errors, to extend the date range for archaeological material to A.D. 1773, to clarify certain categories of archaeological material, to add the subcategory “Inscribed Documents” to the list of archaeological materials, to clarify that the ethnological material listed excludes Jewish ceremonial and ritual objects and manuscripts, and to reorganize the list of ethnological material by type of object instead of by material.

The Agreement between the United States and the Republic of Yemen includes, but is not limited to, the categories of objects described in the Designated List set forth below.

The Designated List includes archaeological and ethnological material from Yemen. The archaeological material in the Designated List includes, but is not limited to, objects made of stone, metal, ceramic, clay, glass, faience, semi-precious stone, paintings, plaster, textiles, leather, parchment, paper, wood, bone, ivory, shell, human remains, and/or other organic materials dated from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1773. The ethnological material in the Designated List includes, but is not limited to, architectural materials, manuscripts, and religious and ceremonial objects from approximately A.D. 1517 to 1918. This would exclude Jewish ceremonial or ritual objects and manuscripts. The Designated List is representative only. Any dates and dimensions are approximate. For the reader's convenience, CBP is reproducing the Designated List contained in CBP Dec. 20-01 in its entirety with the previously detailed modifications.

Restricted archaeological material from Yemen includes the categories listed below, ranging in date from approximately 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1773 and representing the following periods and cultures: Paleolithic, Neolithic, South Arabian, Abyssinian, Sasanian, and Islamic (including but not limited to Umayyad, Abbasid, Ziyadid, Zaydi, Najahid, Sulaihid, Zurayid, Ayyubid, Rasulid, and Tahirid). The following list is representative only.

1. Architectural Elements —Primarily in limestone, marble, and sandstone; including, but not limited to, blocks from walls, floors, and ceilings; columns, capitals, bases, lintels, jambs, friezes, and pilasters; doors, door frames, and window fittings; engaged columns, altars, prayer niches, screens, fountains, mosaics, and inlays. May be plain, molded, carved, or inscribed in various languages and scripts. Common decorative motifs include ibex heads and full animals, oxen or bull heads, rosettes, geometric designs, and curvilinear vine and floral patterns; may be incised or carved in relief. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

2. Non-architectural Relief Sculpture —In alabaster, limestone, marble, calcite, and other kinds of stone. Types include, but are not limited to, carved slabs and plaques, funerary and votive stelae, and bases and base revetments. These may be painted, incised, or carved with relief sculpture, decorated with moldings, and/or carry dedicatory or funerary inscriptions. South Arabian Period styles include, but are not limited to, face plaques and stelae; may be combined with ceramic or plaster sculpture; may be inscribed or painted. Common decorative motifs either incised or in high relief include oxen or bull heads, other animals, mythological creatures, human figures, which are usually clothed, and vegetative and floral patterns; may be inscribed in South Arabian script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 570.

3. Statuary —Primarily in alabaster, but also in calcite, limestone, sandstone, softstone (chlorite and others), and marble. Large- and small-scale, including, but not limited to, deities; human figures, which are usually clothed; animals such as bulls, ibex, and camels; and hybrid or mythological creatures. May be inscribed in South Arabian script. Includes fragments of statues. Some pieces may also include different material types, such as multiple types of stone, metal staffs, shell or bone eyes, and metal, glass, and semi-precious stone jewelry inlay. Approximate dates: 4000 B.C. to A.D. 570.

4. Vessels and Containers —Primarily in alabaster, softstone (chlorite and others), and limestone; may also be marble, basalt, or other stone. Vessels may be conventional shapes such as bowls, cups, jars, jugs, platters, and flasks, or shapes such as smaller funerary urns and incense burners. Common forms include, but are not limited to:

a. South Arabian Period containers for unguents, powders, and liquids in all shapes and sizes. They are flat-bottomed and often have lids. Some pieces have protruding pierced lug handles, which may or may not be in the shape of an animal, usually a bull or ibex. Vessels may be otherwise decorated or inscribed with South Arabian, or other script. Other forms include, but are not limited to, pedestal dishes, bowls, saucers, and three-legged cosmetic palettes, as well as small, rectangular, square-sided boxes, usually decorated with bull's heads, used as containers for smaller bottles. Incense burners from the South Arabian period are usually cuboid and decorated with astral symbols or South Arabian script. Includes miniature vessels and incense burners. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 570.

b. Stone vessels continue in similar form through the Sasanian and Islamic Periods, particularly in softstone (chlorite and others) and alabaster. Includes all vessel types and lamps, usually with geometric incised decoration; may be inscribed with Arabic or other script. Approximate dates: A.D. 570 to 1773.

5. Furniture —In marble, alabaster, and other stone. May include thrones, tables, and other examples. Also includes furniture elements such as legs and feet that may have been attached to a wooden frame; may be funerary. May include South Arabian Period libation and sacrificial altars or tables, which are oblong or square slabs with raised rims; altars have a run-off channel for liquid, usually in the form of an animal, such as a bull's head or ibex. Includes miniature tables. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

6. Tools and Weapons —In flint/chert, obsidian, limestone, tuff, basalt, and other stones. Chipped stone types include, but are not limited to, blades, borers, scrapers, sickles, cores, and arrowheads. Ground stone types include, but are not limited to, grinders ( e.g., mortars, pestles, millstones, whetstones), choppers, axes, celts, hammers, mace heads, and weights. Approximate dates: 200,000 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

7. Jewelry, Seals, and Beads —In marble, limestone, and various semi-precious stones, such as rock crystal, amethyst, garnet, jasper, agate, steatite, and carnelian. Seals or intaglios (small devices with at least one side engraved with a design for stamping or sealing) may be engraved with animals, human figures, and/or inscriptions in various languages. Beads include cylindrical, spherical, conical, disc, and other types; may have cut, incised, or raised decoration. Types include, but are not limited to, amulets, bracelets, and pendants. Approximate dates: 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

1. Non-Architectural Relief Sculpture —Types include cast relief plaques or tablets, appliques, stelae, and masks; often in bronze or copper. Decoration may include human and animal figures, geometric, and floral motifs. May be inscribed/cast in South Arabian, Arabic, or other script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

2. Statuary —Primarily in copper, bronze, silver, or gold; includes fragments of statues. Range from larger-than-life-size to small figurines; forms include, but are not limited to, human figures, which may be clothed or not; animals such as camels, ibex, oxen, bulls, and lions; mythological creatures/figures; and trophies such as votive hands. May be painted or inscribed/cast in relief in South Arabian, Arabic, or other script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 570.

3. Vessels and Containers —Primarily in copper, bronze, or iron; Islamic Period includes more examples in silver and gold. May include forms such as bowls, cups, jars, jugs, strainers, buckets, cauldrons, boxes, oil lamps, incense burners, and scroll or manuscript containers; may occur in the shape of an animal or part of an animal. May be miniature. Decoration may include human or animal figures, or geometric or floral motifs, incised or in relief. Incense burners may be square or cylindrical; front decorated with astral symbols and/or animals. May be inscribed/cast in relief in South Arabian, Arabic, or other script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

4. Furniture —Primarily in bronze and iron; may include thrones, tables, and other examples. Includes pieces of furniture and decorative fittings such as legs and feet that may have been attached to a wooden frame; or thin metal sheets with engraved or impressed designs. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

5. Tools and Instruments —In copper, bronze, iron, silver, gold, and other metals. Types include, but are not limited to, hooks, weights, axes, scrapers, trowels, keys, ladles, tools of craftspeople such as carpenters, masons, and metal smiths. Approximate dates: 3000 B.C. to A.D. 570.

6. Weapons and Armor —Primarily in copper, bronze, and iron. Body armor, such as helmets, cuirasses, shin guards, shields, and horse armor; often decorated with elaborate engraved, embossed, or perforated designs. Launching weapons (spears, javelins, socketed arrowheads); hand-to-hand combat weapons (swords, daggers, jambiyas); and sheaths. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

7. Jewelry and Other Items for Personal Adornment— In copper, iron, bronze, silver, gold, and other metals. Metal can be inlaid with materials such as colored stones and glass. Types include, but are not limited to, necklaces, amulets and pendants, rings, bracelets, anklets, earrings, diadems, wreaths and crowns, beads, buttons, purses, belts, belt buckles, mirrors, and make-up accessories and tools. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

8. Seals and Stamps —Primarily in lead, tin, copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Types include, but are not limited to, rings, amulets, and seals with a shank or handle; designs may include animals, human figures, and/or inscriptions in various languages. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

9. Coins —A reference book for ancient, pre-Islamic material in Yemen is M. Huth, Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms: Ancient Arabian Coins from the Collection of Martin Huth, New York, 2010, pp. 68-152. A reference book for Islamic coinage to A.D. 1773 is S. Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, Santa Rosa, 2011, pp. 116-127. Some of the best-known types are described below:

a. South Arabian Period—In gold, silver, and bronze/copper, with units ranging from tetradrachms down to various fractional levels.

i. Earliest coins from Yemen are imitations of silver tetradrachms from Athens, featuring a bust of Athena on the obverse and an owl on the reverse. The style of these imitations is distinctive, and they are usually marked with South Arabian monograms or graffiti. Approximate dates: 500 B.C. and later.

ii. Mineans produced schematic imitations of the Athenian coinage; these coins have angular shapes, often triangular. Style is distinctive with monograms with South Arabian letters. Approximate date: 200 B.C.

iii. Sabaeans struck distinctive local imitations of Athenian tetradrachms, with or without monograms, often with the curved symbol of Almaqah to the right of the owl, and of smaller units than previously. In the 1st century A.D., the head of Athena is replaced with a male bust resembling Augustus; owl on the reverse continues, as do monograms and the curved symbol. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., a beardless male head appears on the coins with the curved symbol, and a facing bucranium (a bull's head) appears on the reverse with the curved symbol and monograms. Approximate dates: 400 B.C. to A.D. 300.

iv. Himyarite coins feature beardless male heads on the obverse coupled with bearded male heads on the reverse. Various South Arabian monograms appear on the coins. Rulers include, but are not limited to, Yuhabirr, Karib'il Yehun'im Wattar, Amdan Yuhaqbid, Amdan Bayan, Tha'ran Ya'ub, Shamnar Yuhan'am, and unknown kings. Approximate dates: 110 B.C. to A.D. 200.

v. Qatabanians also produced imitations of Athenian coins in the 2nd to 4th century B.C., with or without monograms; distinctive style. From the 2nd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., the head of Athena is replaced with male ruler portraits, including, but not limited to, those of Yad'ab Dhubyan Yuhargib, Dhub, Hawfi'amm Yuhan'am III, Shahr Yagul, Waraw'il Ghaylan, Shahr Hilal, Yad'ab Yanaf, and various unknown rulers. Reverses of early types have the owl, while later types have a second portrait on the reverse. Approximate dates: 400 B.C. to A.D. 200.

vi. Bronze coins from Hadhramaut have radiate male portraits in a circle on the obverse and a standing bull on the reverse; South Arabian symbols appear. Approximate dates: A.D. 200 to 400.

vii. Various South Arabian types imitate Athenian coins, Hellenistic Alexander tetradrachms with a head of Herakles on the obverse and Zeus seated on the reverse, and Ptolemaic coins with a cornucopia on the reverse. Style is distinctive; designs are accompanied by South Arabian monograms.

b. Islamic Period—In gold, silver, and bronze. Including anonymous mints in Yemen and coins of unknown rulers attributed to Yemen. Non-exclusive mints are the primary manufacturers of the listed coins, but there may be other production mints.

i. Abbasid coins struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints San'a, Zabid, `Adan, Dhamar, `Aththar, and Baysh. Approximate dates: A.D. 786 to 974.

ii. Coins of the Amirs of San'a, struck in gold, at the mint of San'a. Approximate dates: A.D. 909 to 911.

iii. Rassid (1st period) coins struck in gold and silver at Sa'da, San'a, Tukhla', and `Aththar. Approximate dates: A.D. 898 to 1014.

iv. Coins of the Amirs of Yemen, struck in silver, at an uncertain mint. Approximate dates: A.D. 1000 to 1100.

v. Coins of the Amirs of `Aththar, struck in gold, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate dates: A.D. 957 to 988.

vi. Tarafid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Aththar. Approximate dates: A.D. 991 to 1004.

vii. Ziyadid coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mint Zabid. Approximate dates: A.D. 955 to 1050s.

viii. Khawlanid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of San'a. Approximate dates: A.D. 1046 to 1047.

ix. Najahid coins, struck in gold, at the mints Zabid and Dathina. Approximate dates: A.D. 1021 to 1158.

x. Sulaihid coins, struck in gold and debased silver, at non-exclusive mints Zabid, `Aththar, `Adan, Dhu Jibla. Approximate dates: A.D. 1047 to 1137.

xi. Zuray'id coins, struck in gold, at the mints of `Adan and Dhu Jibla. Approximate dates: A.D. 1111 to 1174.

xii. Coins of Mahdid of Zabid, struck in silver, at the mint of Zabid. Approximate dates: A.D. 1159 to 1174.

xiii. Rassid (2nd period) coins, struck in gold and silver, at non-exclusive mints Zufar, San'a, Sa'da, Huth, Dhirwah, Kahlan, Muda', `Ayyan, Bukur, al-Jahili, and Dhamar. Approximate dates: A.D. 1185 to 1390.

xiv. Ayyubid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, `Adan, Ta`izz, San'a, al-Dumluwa, Bukur, and Mayban. Approximate dates: A.D. 1174 to 1236.

xv. Rasulid coins, struck in gold, silver, and bronze, at non-exclusive mints `Adan, Zabid, al-Mahjam, Ta'izz, San'a, Tha'bat, and Hajja. Approximate dates: A.D. 1229 to 1439.

xvi. Tahirid coins, struck in silver, at the mint of `Adan. Approximate dates: A.D. 1517 to 1538.

xvii. Rassid (3rd period) coins, struck in silver and bronze, at the mints of San'a, Zafir, and Thula. Approximate dates: A.D. 1506 to 1572.

xviii. Ottoman coins, struck in gold, silver and bronze, at the mints of Zabid, San'a, `Adan, Kawkaban, Ta'izz, Sa'da, al-Mukha, and Malhaz. Approximate dates: A.D. 1520 to 1773.

1. Architectural Elements —Baked clay (terracotta) elements used to decorate buildings. Elements include, but are not limited to, acroteria, antefixes, painted and relief plaques, revetments, carved and molded brick, and wall ornaments and panels. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

2. Non-architectural Relief Sculpture— Types include, but are not limited to, carved slabs and plaques, funerary and votive stelae, and bases and base revetments. Common decorative motifs include ibex heads and full animals, oxen or bull heads, rosettes, and curvilinear vine and floral patterns, and may be incised or in high relief; inscribed with South Arabian, Arabic, or other script. Includes face plaques and stelae: funerary images of faces; may be combined with ceramic or plaster sculpture; may be inscribed or painted. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

3. Statuary —Range from large to small figurines; forms include, but are not limited to, human figures, usually clothed; animals such as camels, ibex, oxen, bulls, and lions; or mythological creatures/figures; and trophies such as votive hands. May be glazed or painted; may include South Arabian script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 570.

4. Vessels —Types include, but are not limited to, utilitarian types and fine tableware, incense burners, and oil lamps.

a. Post-Neolithic/Bronze Age— Common wares include, but are not limited to, hand-built gray-brown or reddish-brown coarseware with large black or white inclusions, occasionally burnished; and fineware, which can have slipwash or burnish with incised or punctate decoration. Some pieces may also have imprints of basketry. Common forms include, but are not limited to, platters and shallow bowls with flat bases, deep bowls and basins with rounded bases, rimmed hemispheric bowls with rounded bases, hole-mouthed jars, necked jars, and large storage jars. Approximate dates: 3500 to 900 B.C.

b. South Arabian Period —Common wares include, but are not limited to, hand-built reddish-brown, yellow, and gray fabrics, which may be unfinished, burnished, or slip-glazed; the most common is red-burnished slip with carinated vessel shapes. Common forms include, but are not limited to, small-rimmed jugs with flat base; small beakers and goblets; rimmed bowls, jars, and vases with ring bases; cooking pots with flat bases and straight walls; hemispherical bowls with ledge handles, often with black burnished slip; plates/platters with flat bases; goblets; amphorae; and oil lamps. Decoration includes, but is not limited to, paint, punctation, incised or pressed designs including South Arabian script, and raised dots. Imported Roman terra sigillata ware, Nabatean painted pottery, Iranian fine orange-painted ware, and Indian red-polished ware are also common. Incense burners from this period may be square or cylindrical and decorated with astral symbols or South Arabian script. Includes miniature vessels. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 570.

c. Sasanian-Islamic Period —Includes stoneware, pottery, porcelain, and other wares, which may be unglazed utilitarian wares or glazed types; local types include, but are not limited to, reddish, pink, and white fabrics with glaze styles including turquoise slip-painted, bright yellow glaze, green-painted glaze, salad ware (light green), pseudo-celadon glazed, brown-painted, and blue glazed on white slip; may include Arabic calligraphy. Imported types are also common and include, but are not limited to, Abbasid Period alkaline blue Sasanian-Islamic jars (A.D. 700 to 1100); Abbasid Period opaque white-glazed bowls, either plain or decorated with cobalt (A.D. 800 to 900); and sgraffiato types in various forms with red fabric and incised and painted designs on white slip including floral, geometric, human, and animal motifs (A.D. 1100 to 1400); other types from China, the Arabo-Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and East Africa are also present. Oil lamps from this period typically have rounded bodies with a hole on the top and in the nozzle and may have handles or lugs and figural motifs; include glazed ceramic lamps, which may have a straight or round bulbous body with flared top and several branches. Approximate dates: A.D. 570 to 1773.

1. Architectural Elements —Mosaics; designs include, but are not limited to, landscapes, scenes of deities, humans, or animals, and activities such as hunting and fishing. There may also be vegetative, floral, or geometric motifs; often with religious imagery. Approximate dates: A.D. 500 to 1773.

2. Vessels —Forms include, but are not limited to, small jars, bowls, animal-shaped vessels, goblets, spherical forms, candle holders, perfume and unguent jars, and lamps; may have cut, incised, raised, enameled, molded, or painted decoration; various colors. South Arabian Period and early Islamic Period types may be colorless, blue, green, or orange and may be engraved; may include floral and/or geometric motifs; may include Arabic calligraphy. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

3. Jewelry —Forms include beads that may be cylindrical, spherical, conical, disc-shaped, and other shapes; may have cut, incised, or raised decoration; various colors; molded and carved glass gemstones; may include other types of glass inlay. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

1. Rock Art —Incised, pecked, or painted drawings on natural rock surfaces. Decoration includes crosses; humans; animals, particularly camels, ibex, and snakes; geometric and/or floral designs; and other designs; includes fragments. May include pre-Islamic graffiti, commonly in South Arabian script. Approximate dates: 12,000 B.C. to A.D. 100.

2. Wall Painting —Decoration includes crosses; humans; animals, particularly camels, ibex, and snakes; geometric and/or floral designs; and other designs; includes fragments. Painted on wood, stone, and plaster. May be on domestic or public walls or tombs. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

1. Stucco —Stucco reliefs, plaques, stelae, and inlays or other architectural decoration in stucco. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

2. Face Plaques, Stelae, and Statues —Funerary images of faces and votive statues; may be combined with stone or ceramic sculpture; may be inscribed or painted. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

Linen cloth used for mummy wrapping. Approximate dates: 500 B.C. to A.D. 500.

1. Books and Manuscripts —Either scrolls, sheets, or bound volumes; including both secular texts and religious texts such as Qurans. Text is often written on vellum or other parchment (cattle, sheep, goat, or camel) and then gathered in leather bindings. Paper may also be used. Types include books and manuscripts, often written in brown ink, and then further embellished with colorful floral or geometric motifs; covers may also be stamped, gilded, or inset with metal, glass, and semi-precious stones. Approximate dates: A.D. 570 to 1773.

2. Items for Personal Adornment —Primarily in leather, including, but not limited to, belts, sandals, shoes, armor, necklaces, bracelets, and other types of jewelry.

1. Architectural and Non-architectural Relief Sculpture —Includes, but not limited to, carved and inlaid wood panels, rooms, beams, balconies, stages, panels, ceilings, and doors, frequently decorated with religious, floral, or geometric motifs; may have script in Arabic. Types include, but are not limited to, bone, ivory, and shell reliefs, plaques, stelae, and inlays; may be carved or sculpted; commonly include human or animal figures, floral, and/or geometric motifs. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

2. Statuary and Figurines —Primarily small-size figurines; forms include, but are not limited to, human figures, which may be clothed or not; animals such as camels, ibex, oxen, bulls, and lions; and mythological creatures/figures. May be painted or inscribed/carved in relief in South Arabian, Arabic, or other script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

3. Furniture —Primarily in wood; may include thrones, other chairs, tables, and other forms. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

4. Personal Ornaments and Objects of Daily Use —Types include, but are not limited to, amulets, combs, pins, spoons, small containers, bracelets, buckles, and beads. Wood, bone, ivory, and shell were also used either alone or as inlays in luxury objects including, but not limited to, furniture, chests and boxes, writing and painting equipment, musical instruments, games, cosmetic containers, combs, and jewelry. Approximate dates: 3500 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

5. Seals and Stamps —Small devices with at least one side engraved with a design for stamping or sealing; they can be discoid, cuboid, or conoid; may include animals, human figures, and/or inscriptions in various languages. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to A.D. 1773.

6. Inscribed Documents —Palm-leaf stalks and wooden sticks inscribed in South Arabian script. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to 570 A.D.

Bones, bone fragments, mummies, and mummified remains.

Restricted ethnological material from Yemen includes the categories listed below, ranging in date from approximately A.D. 1517 to 1918, and including architectural elements, manuscripts encompassing secular and Islamic religious texts, and Islamic religious and ceremonial objects. The categories of restricted material below exclude ethnological Jewish ceremonial or ritual objects and manuscripts. The following list is representative only.

A. Architectural Elements —This category includes architectural elements and decoration from historic structures in all materials. Primarily in stone (especially limestone, marble, and sandstone), metal (especially copper, brass, lead, and alloys), ceramic or baked clay (terracotta), glass, plaster or stucco, and wood; also includes inlays in bone and ivory. Includes ceilings, rooms, walls, and blocks and bricks from walls, floors, and ceilings; arches, beams, columns, capitals, bases, lintels, jambs, friezes, parapets, crenellations, merlons, pilasters, and tent posts; doors, door frames and fixtures, and window frames, fixtures, fittings, and panes; altars, balconies, chandeliers, finials, prayer niches (mihrabs), cenotaphs, sepulchers, screens, stages, pulpits (minbars), panels, plaques, fountains, wall ornaments, revetments, mosaics, tiles, inlays; and other forms. May be plain, molded, carved, inlaid, gilded, plastered, and/or painted; elements may bear Arabic inscriptions. Common decorative motifs include geometric, floral, arabesque (intertwining), and religious motifs, and may be incised or in high relief. Ceramic or terracotta tiles, plaques, bricks, and other elements may be glazed and/or painted.

B. Manuscripts —Consisting of scrolls, sheets, bound volumes, or boards, primarily written in Arabic and including both secular texts and Islamic religious texts such as Qurans. Text is often written on vellum, other parchment (cattle, sheep, goat, or camel), or paper, then gathered in leather bindings. Texts may also be written on wooden boards. Types include, but are not limited to, books, scrolls, manuscripts, and Islamic study tablets or Quran boards. Includes fragments. May be decorated with colorful religious, geometric, floral, or arabesque (intertwining) motifs and/or paintings.

C. Religious and Ceremonial Objects —This category includes objects typically used in Islamic communal religious and ceremonial settings in all materials. Primarily in stone, metal, ceramic, clay, glass, wood, bone, ivory, textiles, leather, and other organic materials.

1. Non-architectural Monuments —Primarily in stone (especially alabaster, limestone, and marble) or metal (especially copper, bronze, and brass). May take the form of carved slabs with religious, floral, geometric, or arabesque (intertwining) motifs. Types include, but are not limited to, plaques, stelae, memorial stones, tombstones, and cenotaphs; may bear Arabic inscriptions.

2. Vessels and Containers —Includes vessels and containers used in religious and ceremonial settings in stone (especially alabaster, limestone, and softstone), metal (especially silver, copper, bronze, brass, and other alloys), ceramic, glass, wood, bone, ivory, leather, and other materials. Types include, but are not limited to, mosque lamps; incense burners and braziers; candlesticks, candelabras, and sconces from religious settings; basins, ewers, and other vessels used for ablutions; reliquaries (and their contents); and scroll or manuscript containers, such as boxes, pouches, chests, cases, or caskets used to hold a Quran or other Islamic religious text. May be plain or decorated with floral, geometric, religious, arabesque (intertwining), or other motifs; may bear Arabic inscriptions.

3. Furniture —Primarily in wood and stone. Types include pulpits (minbars), prayer niches (mihrabs), screens, Quran holders or stands, lecterns, study tables, cabinets, and other furniture used in religious and ceremonial settings. May be carved, incised, painted, gilded, and/or inlaid with other materials; may be decorated with floral, geometric, religious, arabesque (intertwining), or other motifs; may bear Arabic inscriptions.

4. Textiles —Includes textiles used for religious and ceremonial purposes, primarily in linen, silk, and wool. Types include, but are not limited to, banners, hangings, and curtains used in religious and ceremonial settings; shrine covers; and shrouds. Often woven or embroidered in bright colors with floral, geometric, arabesque (intertwining), or religious designs, and/or Arabic inscriptions.

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and, by extension, Executive Order 13563.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of the Secretary's delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.

Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological material. In certain limited circumstances, the CPIA authorizes the imposition of restrictions on an emergency basis (19 U.S.C. 2603). The emergency restrictions are effective for no more than five years from the date of the State Party's request and may be extended for three years where it is determined that the emergency condition continues to apply with respect to the covered material (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(3)). These restrictions may also be continued, in whole or in part, pursuant to an agreement concluded within the meaning of the CPIA (19 U.S.C. 2603(c)(4)).

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(a), the government of Ukraine, a State Party to the Convention, requested on March 5, 2024, that import restrictions be imposed on certain archaeological and ethnological material, the pillage of which jeopardizes the cultural heritage of Ukraine. The CPIA authorizes the President (or designee) to apply import restrictions on an emergency basis if the President determines that an emergency condition applies with respect to any archaeological or ethnological material of any requesting State Party (19 U.S.C. 2603).

On July 26, 2024, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, after consultation with and recommendation by the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, made the determinations necessary under the CPIA for the emergency imposition of import restrictions on categories of archaeological material and ethnological material of the cultural heritage of Ukraine. The Designated List below sets forth the categories of material to which the import restrictions apply. Thus, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is amending § 12.104g(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104g(b)) accordingly.

Importation of covered material from Ukraine will be restricted until March 5, 2029, unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

The Designated List includes, but is not limited to, categories of objects described below.

Archaeological material in the Designated List ranges in date from the Paleolithic period (c. 1.4 million years ago) through 1774 C.E. Ethnological material in the Designated List includes: ethnological religious and ritual objects, and objects related to funerary rites and burials dating from 200 C.E. to 1917 C.E.; ethnological manuscripts, written documents, and early prints dating from 900 C.E. to 1917 C.E.; ethnological architectural elements dating from 200 C.E. to 1917 C.E.; and ethnological paintings, military material, and traditional folk clothing and textiles dating from 1700 C.E. to 1917 C.E. The designated list set forth is representative only. Any dates and dimensions are approximate.

Approximate simplified chronology of well-known periods:

Early Modern Period: c. 1650-1917 C.E.

Archaeological material includes categories of objects ranging in date from c. 1.4 million years ago through 1774 C.E.

1. Large Sculpture and Statues —Including anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and multi-figure compositions. Made primarily of sandstone, limestone, marble, and shell rock. Neolithic menhir-like stones may represent stylized human images, while Bronze Age statues are usually rectangular with the head outlined and other body parts shown in relief. Scythian sculptures schematically depict warriors. Sculptures from the Eneolithic and Ancient Greek periods often take the form of schematic human busts. Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures often depict naturalistic images of various figures, including humans, mythological creatures, and animals. Medieval nomadic stelae depict humans schematically, often with pointed headdresses. Approximate date: 6000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

2. Miniature Sculptures and Statues —Made primarily of marble, quartz, and alabaster, these include anthropomorphic and zoomorphic forms and images of objects. Copper Age figurines vary in shape, often featuring prominent eyes, noses, or sex markers. Ancient Greek and Roman marble statuettes are naturalistic, depicting various figures. Approximate date: 6000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

3. Architectural Elements —Originating from religious, residential, and burial sites and used in walls, floors, vaults, and roofs. Constructed from slate, sandstone, limestone, marble, and other stones. Elements include, but are not limited to, capitals and parts of columns, pilasters, friezes, door and window frames, keystones, altars, altar screens, mosaics, and tiles. Stone slabs with relief and inlaid sculpted compositions, depicting religious figures, animals, and floral motifs, were embedded into railings or other parts of buildings. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

4. Mosaics —Composed of painted pebbles, marble, limestone, and bricks. Floors made of painted pebbles decorated Ancient Greek-period inner courts and rooms. Early Christian churches in Crimea and Kyiv were decorated with mosaics made of marble of various colors, limestone, and bricks. These mosaics were crafted from small cube-shaped stones (tesserae) measuring approximately 4-6 cm x 3-5 cm, set in a limestone mortar or cement. Motifs include, but are not limited to, geometric patterns, palmettes, depictions of people, borders with meanders, waves, braids, pairs of animals, and griffins. They show a variety of colors, including black, white, dark blue, and brown. Approximate date: 700 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

5. Miniature Columns and Small Altars —Used to decorate shrines, burials, and churches, miniature columns range in size from 10 to 100 cm high and could be rounded, fluted, twisted, or composed of semi-columns. Made primarily of white marble, gray limestone, or shell rock. Small altars are movable architectural structures with rectangular or rounded bases, sometimes column-shaped with a shallow round surface, ranging in height from 10 cm to 1 m. These items are found at Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Medieval sites. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

6. Furniture —Including, but not limited to, tables, tripods, and stool legs often shaped like lion's paws, as well as throne or stool backs and armrests decorated with reliefs or sculptures. Typically made of marble and other stones and dating from the Ancient Greek and Roman periods. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

7. Slabs with Relief Images and Inscriptions —Made of marble, limestone, and other local stones, these slabs have been produced since the Bronze Age. Locally quarried slabs are often gray, porous, and rough, while slabs carved in Ukraine on imported marble are white and gray. Motifs on Ancient Greek and Roman period slabs include humans, lions, sphinxes, and griffins, with reliefs sometimes combined with paintings. Inscriptions in various scripts, including Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic, are found on slabs of various shapes and sizes. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

8. Sarcophagi, Ossuaries, and Gravestones —Sarcophagi and ossuaries are usually rectangular constructions made of jointed or carved slabs; their lids are also included, having roof-like shapes in the Roman period. Sizes vary depending on purpose: for cremations or inhumations, they range from half a meter to several meters. Gravestones are typically decorated with floral ornaments, rosettes, and cornices; usually rectangular with roof, arch, or cone-shaped tops. Late Antique, Medieval, and Early Modern gravestones include those shaped as crosses, tree trunks, or architectural structures. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

9. Crosses and Icons —Stone crosses are made primarily of marble or limestone and range in size from 10 cm to over half a meter. Stone icons are typically carved as rectangular or round plates usually from pink or blue slate or sandstone. Icons range from 5 to 25 cm in size. They are painted with images of single, frontally depicted, full-length or half-length figures of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or saints such as Nicholas, Theodore Stratelates, or others, or religious scenes with two to three figures shown frontally or in three-quarters view, such as the Annunciation, Presentation, Descent into Hell, and others. Icons usually have a frame, while crosses are sometimes set in frames made of other materials. Precious stones may be used in the decoration of small cultic objects. Approximate date: 300-1774 C.E.

10. Vessels —Made primarily of limestone, marble, and alabaster. Including, but not limited to, mortars and pestles of various sizes from the Bronze Age, and marble vessels for washing from the Ancient Greek and Roman periods. Alabaster vases and lamps were common in the Ancient Greek period. Church ceremonial vessels from the Medieval and Early Modern periods vary in shape from miniature narrow bottles (alabastra) to large open-shaped water basins (louteria). Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

11. Tools —Types include, but are not limited to, choppers, handaxes, axe heads, microlithic inlays, scrapers, blades, polishing tools, loom-weights, grindstones, wine-press stones, and anchors. Primarily made of flint, obsidian, granite, quartz, quartzite, shale, and steatite. Early Paleolithic tools were pebbles with chopped edges; later shapes continuing through the Copper and Bronze Ages include flaked tools. Loom-weights vary from conical to elongated shapes. Approximate date: 1.4 million years ago-1774 C.E.

12. Weapons —Types include, but are not limited to, arrowheads, spearheads, darts, maces, and cannonballs. Stone weapon heads have been used since the Paleolithic period. Stone maces from the Neolithic period are often smoothed. Cannonballs, often made of porous stone, range from 10 to 30 cm in diameter. Approximate date: 1.4 million years ago-1774 C.E.

13. Games —Represented primarily by dice and chess pieces. Chess pieces from the Kyivan Rus period have one flat side and a spherical or anthropomorphic shape. Ancient Greek dice are flat pebbles with ancient engravings and marks. Dice are about 2-4 cm in diameter. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

14. Adornments —Types include, but are not limited to, beads, pendants, and inlays made from materials such as turquoise, marble, quartz, emerald, carnelian, jasper, onyx, ruby, amethyst, and lazurite. Sarmatian jewelry contemporary with the Ancient Greek and Roman periods features inlaid precious stones. Byzantine and Kyivan Rus periods are known for amethyst and lazurite beads and inlays. Imported inlays were used in Medieval and later periods. Approximate date: 6000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

1. Coins —In gold, silver, bronze, copper, and lead. Some coin types minted in or commonly found in archaeological contexts in Ukraine in various periods are listed below.

a. Ancient Greek cities in Ukraine, including Olbia, Panticapaeum, Chersonesus, and Tyras, minted coins of various weights and metals. Cast currency in dolphin, sturgeon, and arrowhead forms was also produced in this period. See Zograph, A. Ancient Coinage, Part II, Ancient Coins of the Northern Black Sea Littoral. (Oxford, 1977). Approximate date: 600-47 B.C.E.

b. In the Roman period, Panticapaeum continued to mint coins, and other Roman imperial coins were also used. See MacDonald, D. An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, Classical Numismatic Studies 5. (Lancaster, 2005). Approximate date: 47 B.C.E.-500 C.E.

c. Coins minted in the Kyivan Rus period include gold and silver zlatnyks with a portrait of the ruler and the trident (tryzub) symbol. Hexagonal cast ingots (hryvnia) were also produced. Bohemian deniers and dirhams of Islamic states were also used in the Medieval period. Pierced coins and exfoliated (flaked) coins, including half-coins and forgeries, were common. Approximate date: 880-1240 C.E.

d. Coins in use during the Late Medieval and Early Modern periods include, but are not limited to, Mongolian dirhams, Lithuanian denars, Polish ducats, Crimean Khanate akces, Austro-Hungarian talers, Ottoman coins, and Russian rubles. Approximate date: 1240-1774 C.E.

2. Medallions —Usually featuring relief images, known since the Early Iron Age, with gold, silver, and bronze phaleras used during the Roman period. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

3. Relief Plaques and Reliefs —Made of gold, silver, bronze, and lead. Used to decorate clothes, wooden, or leather objects, such as horse harnesses, quivers, scabbards, belts, and vessels. Decorations include animals and floral ornaments. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

4. Jewelry —Types include, but are not limited to, diadems, earrings, rings, necklaces, bracelets, crosses, pendants, fibulae, beads, and tubes. Scythian jewelry in the Animal Style was typically made of gold, less often of silver and bronze. Usually, these pieces depict predators attacking herbivorous animals and mythological creatures. Small gold pendants and beads were used to decorate clothes of these and later nomads. Byzantine and Kyivan Rus jewelry featured floral and geometric designs. Medieval period pendants include moon-shaped examples decorated with ornaments and temporal or temple rings of various shapes, including plain wrapped wire or featuring plates, pendants and ornaments. Bronze and silver fibulae of the Early Iron Age show a variety of forms and are much smaller than the massive Early Medieval fibulae shaped as anthropomorphic figurines or five-rayed ornaments. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

5. Vessels— Primarily made of bronze, silver, and gold. Large riveted bronze cauldrons with thick walls and short stems or feet, up to 1 meter in diameter, known since the Bronze Age. Smaller Scythian vessels include, but are not limited to, cones, rhytons, kylixes, phiales, cups, ceremonial plates, kraters, ladles, and strainers. Sarmatians widely used Roman-type vessels like situlas and pans. Vessels corresponding to Greek, Roman, Celtic and Late Roman bronze vessel types are also known. Metal handles from Scythian, Greek-period, and other vessels are often shaped as anthropomorphic or zoomorphic figures. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-late 1774 C.E.

6. Sculpture and Small Figurines— Include bronze sculptures from the Ancient Greek and Roman periods, often fragmentary. Small figurines typically depicted deities, animals, and mythological creatures. Medieval examples show a more schematic style. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

7. Horse Harness Elements —Including, but not limited to, shuffrons or chanfrons (face covers), often decorated in relief, psalia (bit and cheek-pieces), horseshoes, spurs, and stirrups. Scythian horse bridles were composed of bronze bits with stirrup-shaped ends, iron bits with looped ends, three-looped iron or bronze cheek-pieces, and nose plates. Sarmatian sets often included silver and lead bridle roundels, iron bits, cheek-pieces, frontlets with a hook, and phaleras. Medieval horse harnesses also featured phaleras, psalia, and other details made of precious metals. For example, the Khazar psalia were nail-shaped, and Kyivan Rus sets sometimes included horse head-covers made of several plates. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

8. Armor Elements —Including, but not limited to, mail, knee and elbow guards, shields (and shield bosses or umbos), helmets, and belt sets. Scale armor consisted of iron, bronze, or bone scales sewn onto leather. Chain mail made of iron links was known in the Roman period and more frequent in the Kyivan Rus period. Approximate date: 900 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

9. Weapons —Including, but not limited to, swords (including folded ones), daggers, arrowheads, spearheads, darts, maces, scepters, crossbows, cannons and cannonballs, and sabers. Scythians used leaf-shaped spearheads, bronze or sometimes iron arrowheads with a socket and two or three edges, iron swords and daggers, long swords, and war axes. Kyivan Rus warriors used star-shaped maces, axes, spears, swords, and arrows. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-late 1774 C.E.

10. Vehicle Element s—Including, but not limited to, anchors, cart elements, and chariot wheels. Ancient Greek- and Roman-period chariot details often featured figurines. Approximate date: 2000 B.C.E.-300 C.E.

11. Tools —Including, but not limited to, knives, axes, tongs, needles, thimbles, medical instruments, strigils, miniature spoons, nails, hoes, plows, and sickles. May be made of bronze, copper, iron, silver, and gold. Precious metals were sometimes applied to miniature or ceremonial tools, which are often decorated with ornaments or figurative terminals. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

12. Bells —Typically made in bronze or iron, in various shapes and sizes, including spherical, with holes and balls inside; dome-shaped; cylindrical; and pear-shaped. Bells adorned jewelry and dress, as well as carts, chariots, and horse harnesses. Examples for cultic use were hollow, with slits and small balls inside; they were positioned on elongated sockets and crowned with images of animal- or bird-heads or figures. Approximate date: 700 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

13. Lighting Devices —Including oil lamps and candle holders, sometimes elaborately decorated and typically made of bronze. Oil lamps were rounded or elongated containers with one or more nozzles and a handle. Candle holders are found in hanging, table, and standing varieties. They are often decorated with separately produced ornaments. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-late 1774 C.E.

14. Seals or Sealings —Medieval hanging lead seals used to certify documents are called molybdobulas or bullas. They have at least one round flat side with a relief, and they often resemble medallions and were pierced to be hung. Later bullas take the shape of gold chrysobulls. They begin at about 2 cm in diameter, and their color varies from gray to brown. Approximate date: 200-1774 C.E.

15. Icons and Crosses —Including, but not limited to, relief metal icons, crosses, and encolpions (icon medallions). Encolpions, relief metal icons, and their frames were often made of mixed materials and carved, inlaid with precious stones and metals, or engraved. Both icons and crosses are found in various sizes, including smaller examples for wearing on the chest and large ceremonial ones. Approximate date: 300-1774 C.E.

16. Mirrors —Including, but not limited to, hand mirrors made of silver and bronze, with one polished flat side and carved decoration on the back. May be round with a handle or a loop at the center of the back. Handles typically take the form of either a loop or a plaque raised above two small posts; they are sometimes decorated with sculpted or carved animals on the terminals, or made in anthropomorphic form. Approximate date: 600 B.C.E.-200 C.E.

17. Keys and Locks —Including, but not limited to, cylindrical locks with C-shaped shackles. Later examples were flattened with more complex keyways. Some examples had protective shields. Approximate date: 800-1774 C.E.

18. Lead Plates —Including inscribed and uninscribed examples. May be folded or unrolled. Lead plates with traces of cast ornamentation are known. Vary in color from light gray to almost black with green or brown tints. Approximate date: 700 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

19. Games —Including dice and simple chess pieces, made from lead and bronze, shaped as knucklebones or cylinders with or without carving. Used across various periods, in sizes around 2-4 cm in diameter. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

1. Architectural Ceramics —Including, but not limited to, terracotta roof tiles with stamps, antefixes (ornamented or anthropomorphic), sculpted rainwater spouts (typically in a lion-head shape), drainpipes, stamped or engraved bricks, including “plinths” (wide and flat fired bricks resembling tiles). Roof-tile styles include ridge tiles, raised tiles (imbrices), and tegulae. May be decorated with stamped relief designs. Antefixes may be decorated with palmettes, anthropomorphic images, or painted. Includes relief plaques and medallions that may be part of antefixes and are decorated with mythological scenes. Bricks may have traces of graffiti or be stamped. Kyivan Rus bricks used in churches may bear trident-shaped relief marks. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

2. Stove Tiles— Including glazed and unglazed stove tiles. Glazed types may be smooth or have relief decoration. Glazed stove tiles are typically decorated in green, blue, white, brown, red, and other colors. Unglazed stove tiles are typically created from clays in brown, buff, pink, red, and yellow colors, and may have negative relief decoration. Stove tiles may be decorated with painted ornaments, such as heraldic, floral, anthropomorphic, and/or zoomorphic motifs, or state and family symbols. Sizes vary, but they are typically 10 to 50 cm in height. Approximate date: 1200-1774 C.E.

3. Vessels —Including utilitarian vessels, fine tableware, and special-purpose vessels, in conventional shapes such as amphorae, bowls, bottles, goblets, jars, pitchers, plates, storage vessels, and vases, as well as unconventional shapes such as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic forms. Includes vessel lids and fragments of vessels. Clay colors vary but are typically gray or red. Vessels may be glazed (typically black or red), enameled, or engobed. Vessels may be painted, incised, molded or stamped in relief, or incrusted, or bear applied decoration. Types and characteristics of various periods are described below.

a. Neolithic and Copper Age— Vessel styles include Linear Band Ware or Linear Spiral-Meander Pottery with a globular shape and linear incised ornamentation such as spirals, and Cucuteni-Trypillia wares that may be decorated with incised or stamped designs, sometimes filled with white or red paste, or painted in monochrome, bichrome, or polychrome designs in white, red, brown, and black and engobed in red, orange, white, and other colors. Painted designs include geometric and organic motifs. Characteristic Trypillia forms include biconical pots and binocular-shaped cultic vessels, as well as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels. Includes vessels that may have applied zoomorphic ornaments. Approximate date: 6000-2000 B.C.E.

b. Bronze Age —Vessel styles include types related to Corded Ware pottery with impressed or incised rope-like decorations and globular forms. Approximate date: 2100-800 B.C.E.

c. Greek and Roman Pottery —Ancient Greek pottery most often found in Ukraine includes, but is not limited to, kraters, table amphorae, bomoi, olpes, jars, oinochoes, kylixes, skyphoi, cups, pateras, phiales, lekythoi, plates, lekanes with lids, flasks, and gutti. The most recognizable types of painted vessels are Geometric, Black-figure, Red-figure, and White-ground. Greek and Roman tableware also includes vessels cast in molds such as Hellenistic cups and Roman Sigillata. Black glazed (lacquered) pottery includes several types with stamped ornaments. May bear short painted inscriptions (dipinti) or incised inscriptions (graffiti). The rims of pithoi were often incised with letters or ornaments. Approximate date: 700 B.C.E.-340 C.E.

d. Byzantine and Medieval —Vessels may be glazed and/or decorated with paint or relief ornaments. Transport amphorae are also found in this period. Approximate date: 340-1650 C.E.

e. Miniature Vessels —Miniature vessels are typically found in the above-mentioned shapes and styles, but in sizes as small as 1 cm in diameter. May be painted. Includes miniature clay spoons. Approximate date: 4000-47 B.C.E

4. Figurines and Models —Including figurines representing anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and mythical figures and models of objects, buildings, or vehicles. Styles common in various periods are described below. Approximate date: 4000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

a. Copper Age Trypillian— Figurines are typically abstract and stylized with pierced, incised, and pinched details. Models of houses, boats, and sleighs drawn by oxen are typical in this period.

b. Ancient Greek and Roman Period— Figurines are usually naturalistic images of humans, half-human creatures, animals, and objects. Some figurines are made with separate movable limbs. Most figurines are hollow inside, with a technical opening (rounded, square, or triangular). May be painted, gilded, and/or decorated with applied elements, such as small clay balls, fruits, flowers, rosettes, leaves, and/or wreaths, which may bear incised details. Some figurines may have been created in molds. Clay cart models drawn by a horse are also found in the Roman period.

c. Late Antique to Early Modern Period— Figurines may be handmade or molded in anthropomorphic and zoomorphic forms. May be painted or incised.

5. Miniature Altars —Typically in cubic, rectangular, and rounded forms, but may also take the form of the club of Heracles. They are usually profiled, but sometimes bear relief images on their sides. Sizes typically vary from 10 to over 50 cm in height. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-300 C.E.

6. Molds —Types include jewelry molds and figurine molds. Sizes vary, but jewelry molds are typically 5-15 cm in length, while figurine molds reach up to 25-30 cm. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

7. Tools —Including, but not limited to, loom-weights (may be round or pyramidal), coils, and fishing sinkers (may be pyramidal or quadrangular). Loom-weights and sinkers are typically pierced and smoothed but undecorated. Sizes vary, but are typically between 5-10 cm in diameter (rounded shapes) or up to 15 cm in height (pyramidal and quadrangular shapes). Approximate date: 6000 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

8. Musical Instruments —Including wind and rattle-like instruments or toys that may be shaped like birds, eggs, boars, tortoises, other zoomorphic forms, and coffins. Approximate date: 3500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

9. Lamps and Lighting —Including, but not limited to, oil lamps and candle holders. Oil lamps vary in shape and type, ranging from open-shaped and hanging types to closed types with narrow nozzles, thin handles, and reliefs on the discus. Typically made from gray or red clay. May also be black-glazed or painted. Approximate date: 600 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

10. Smoking Pipes —Early forms are typically short and rounded. Later forms are typically decorated and sometimes stamped. Approximate date: 600 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

11. Items of Personal Adornment —Includes, but not limited to, beads and pendants. May be plain, glazed, painted, and/or engraved. Some beads and pendants have a zoomorphic form. Beads and pendants of Egyptian faience (sintered quartz) are typically light blue and may retain traces of glaze. Forms in this material include, but are not limited to, scarabs, Bes, Horus-Harpocrates, and other Hellenized Egyptian deities, as well as lions. Approximate date: 3500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

12. Games and Toys —Includes, but is not limited to, gaming pieces such as dice, chess pieces, painted eggs, and disc- or square-shaped tokens. Tokens may bear the impression of a coin on one side. Clay eggs may be plain or painted. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

Including fragments of plaster used in architectural contexts from the Ancient Greek period and from the Kyivan Rus through Early Modern periods. May be painted, incised, or stamped. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

1. Plaques and Decorated Bones —Made from the bones of bulls, goats, mammoths, and other animals or from fossilized bone. The bone may be untreated, polished, painted, cut, incised, and/or engraved. Bone plaques may be decorated with linear and geometric incisions (such as coils), images, symbols (such as tamgas) and/or inscriptions. Approximate date: 1.4 million years ago-1774 C.E.

2. Figurines —Decoration includes crosses; humans; animals, particularly camels, ibex, and snakes; geometric and/or floral designs; and other designs; includes fragments. Painted on wood, stone, and plaster. May be on domestic or public walls or tombs. Approximate dates: 1200 B.C. to 1773 C.E.

3. Miniature Vessels and Boxes —Including, but not limited to, pyxides and their lids and narrow boxes for needles. Often bear engraved decorations. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1650 C.E.

4. Tools —Including, but not limited to, harpoons, needles, coils, awls, knife- and sickle-handles, miniature spoons, and writing implements (styli). Sizes vary, but typically range from 2 to 10 cm in length. Handles may be sculpted. Approximate date: 1 million years ago-1774 C.E.

5. Musical Instruments —Including parts of wind instruments such as the aulos, syrinx, syringa, and pan flute, and parts of stringed instruments such as the chelys or lyre, made from tortoiseshell. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

6. Horse and Warrior's Equipment —Including, but not limited to, bone psalia (bit and cheek-pieces), whip handles, plaques for maces, bows, and quivers, and arrowheads. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

7. Items of Personal Adornment —Including, but not limited to, pins, bracelets, beads, rings, buckles, buttons, combs, furniture inlays, incrustations, box inlays, crosses, mirror handles, pommels, and powder containers. Combs may have engraved decoration, typically in circular form, and may be double-sided. Pommels are often carved as figurines. Amulets are often made of animal teeth and rings of tubular bones. Engraved pieces are commonly decorated with ornaments, marks, signs, and more. Plaques applied to decorate furniture, coffins, chests, and small boxes may bear elaborate reliefs. Buckles, buttons, and other accessories frequently feature engraved designs, images, and sometimes graffiti or carvings. Mirror handles and pins of the Ancient Greek and Roman periods may bear figurative carvings. Crosses and their inlay details were often made of bone, either engraved or carved. Trifold bone containers, approximately 10 cm in height, are interpreted as powder containers. They date to the Late Medieval to Early Modern periods and are often decorated with engravings. Approximate date: 1 million years ago-1774 C.E.

8. Games —Including gaming pieces such as dice, knucklebones, simple chess pieces, and other types. Knucklebones often have a variety of engraved marks on them. Chess pieces often have one flat side and a spherical or anthropomorphic shape; some may have a polychrome decoration. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

1. Architectural Elements —Including, but not limited to, elements of towers, wells, churches, dwellings, and fences, particularly from the Medieval period. Carved wooden house decorations are found in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. Large elements may reach over 2 m, while carved elements may be smaller. Approximate date: 6000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

2. Vehicle Elements —Including, but not limited to, part of cartwheels, chariots, and boats. Cartwheels and fragments thereof, in both solid and spoked forms, may be found in Bronze Age burials. Includes elements of Ancient Greek and Roman period chariots. Boats and parts thereof from the Medieval period were sometimes used as coffins. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

3. Furniture and Coffin Elements —Including, but not limited to, parts of tables, tripods, thrones, chairs, and klines (beds), sometimes carved with sculptural details. Carved and inlaid furniture is particularly common in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. Approximate date: 650 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

4. Vessels —Including, but not limited to, Scythian-period cups and trays, which are sometimes set with precious metal plaques, and Medieval-period plates, which may be engraved. Also includes barrels from the Medieval and Early Modern periods. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

5. Tools and Weapons —Including, but not limited to, distaffs, knife handles, quivers, and weaving combs. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

6. Crosses and Icons —Including both large ceremonial and smaller personal crosses or carved wooden inlays for crosses. Crosses from the Medieval period and later are often made of cypress. Ceremonial crosses may reach up to 1 m, while personal crosses range from 1 to 15 cm in height. Icons are typically made of from one to three panels of coniferous or deciduous wood that have been joined together, painted, and finished with transparent varnish. Painted images include single, frontally depicted, full-length or half-length figures of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or saints such as Nicholas, Theodore Stratelates, or others, or religious scenes with two to three figures shown frontally or in three-quarters view, such as the Annunciation, Presentation, Descent into Hell, and others. Icons range in size from 20 cm to 2 or 3 m. Approximate date: 300-1774 C.E.

7. Musical Instruments —Including, but not limited to, stringed instruments, wind instruments, and percussion instruments. Beck-flutes are typical of the Medieval period. Approximate date: 3000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

8. Objects of Ceremonial and Daily Use —Including, but not limited to, wooden and bark shoes, lids from Ancient Greek-type mirrors, chests, caskets, games-such as simple chess pieces-and game boards. Also includes inscriptions in various scripts and languages on wooden plaques, birchbark, and paper. Chests may be painted or engraved and range in size from 5 to 50 cm. Approximate date: 2000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

9. Leather Objects —Including, but not limited to, tokens, elements of dress such as shoes and belts, saddle elements, quivers, and casket elements. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

10. Textiles —Textiles and textile fragments are attested beginning in the Bronze Age and particularly in the Scythian period. May have floral ornaments in gold thread. Approximate date: 2500 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

11. Amber Objects —Including, but not limited to, sculptures or figurines, usually schematic in style, dating particularly to the Copper and Bronze Ages and the Kyivan Rus period. Also includes jewelry and adornments such as beads, pendants, and inlays. Approximate date: 4000 B.C.E.-1240 C.E.

1. Items of Personal Adornment —Including, but not limited to, intaglios (also called gems), plain jewelry inlays, beads, rings, and bracelets. Intaglios are of various colors, but most commonly red or white. They have one flat surface with an engraved image, such as mythological figures and symbols. Inlays were most commonly made for rings, seals, and earrings. Beads, rings, and bracelets were made in a variety of colors, including red, blue, and yellow. Approximate date: 1000 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

2. Vessels —Including both thicker, colored glass and transparent glass. Early vessel shapes include, but are not limited to, aryballoi (globular flasks). Thin transparent glass vessels, often with colored waves, are found beginning in the Roman period. Approximate date: 700 B.C.E.-1774 C.E.

3. Games —Including, but not limited to, dice and simple chess pieces. Chess pieces may be spherical or anthropomorphic in form; they are usually made of white, green, and brown glass and may be polychromatic. Approximate date: 700 B.C.E.-1300 C.E.

4. Mosaics —Glass tesserae were used for mosaics decorating floors, walls, and ceilings of Christian temples, as well as icons. Mosaic tesserae are around 1-2 cm and appear in various colors, including gold and blue. May be cobalt glass. Approximate date: 400-1300 C.E.

Including human remains and fragments of human remains, such as skeletal remains, soft tissue, and ash from the human body that may be preserved in burials, reliquaries, ossuaries, and other contexts. Bronze Age remains may include elongated skulls and mummified remains. Also includes Bronze Age skulls that have been painted and/or modeled, pierced, or given other decorations, as well as bones painted with red ochre or other materials. Approximate date: 1.4 million years ago-1774 C.E.

Ethnological material includes the following categories: ethnological religious and ritual objects, and objects related to funerary rites and burials dating from c. 200 to 1917 C.E.; ethnological manuscripts, written documents, and early prints dating from c. 900 to 1917 C.E.; ethnological architectural elements dating from c. 200 to 1917 C.E.; and ethnological paintings, military material, and traditional folk clothing and textiles dating from c. 1700 to 1917 C.E.

A. Religious and Ritual Objects, and Objects Related to Funerary Rites and Burials —Religious and ritual objects include moveable objects typically used in Ukrainian communal religious and ceremonial settings in all materials, as well as objects related to funerary rites and burials. Primarily in stone, wood, ceramic, metal, hand mixed paints, and textiles. Approximate date: c. 200-1917 C.E.

1. Sculptures —Including stone icons, relief plates, facade reliefs on religious structures, large free-standing sculpture found in both exterior and interior religious settings, small decorative sculptures, roadside crosses or figures, baptismal fonts (sometimes lotus-shaped), altars, lamps, and candlesticks. Primary materials include local stone (pink or blue slate or sandstone), white limestone, and imported materials such as jasper, steatite, alabaster, or wood. Stone icons are small stone plates (5-25 cm) depicting Christ, the Virgin Mary, Nicholas, and other religious figures. Reliefs often feature religious and narrative images such as a warrior fighting a lion, two saintly warriors on horseback, nativity scenes (vertep), and others.

2. Memorial Objects —Including sarcophagi, epitaph plaques, and tombstones, such as Jewish matzevah, Crimean Tatar mezartash and bashtash (gravestones bearing the name, place, and dates of birth and death), grave crosses and sculptures, made of stone, marble, slate, and other materials. Objects are often adorned with intricate carvings (floral, human, and zoomorphic motifs) and inscriptions.

3. Ritual Processional and Altar Objects —Includes wooden and stone icons of various sizes. Icons are a type of religious image carved from rectangular or round stone plates (usually pink or blue slate or sandstone, 5-25 cm) or painted on wood panels, depicting single saints (Christ, the Virgin Mary, Nicholas, Theodore Stratelates, etc.) frontally in either full-length or half-length, or religious scenes with two to three figures (Annunciation, Presentation, Descent into Hell, etc.) shown frontally or in three-quarter view. Intended for private use and close viewing. Wooden icons are made of one to three coniferous or deciduous wooden panels, joined together, prepared, covered with tempera paint (pigments ground in egg yolk), and finished with a transparent varnish. May be used in processions, altars, iconostases, or be free-standing. Size usually ranges from 20 cm to 2-3 m.

This category also includes ritual and ceremonial vessels, such as donation bowls, jugs and pitchers for holy water, Easter baskets (paskivnyk), vessels used in wedding ceremonies (lembyk, perepiytsia), Jewish seder plates, and Hanukkah menorah. Lembyk drinking vessels often take human or animal forms. Jewish objects are frequently glazed and decorated with flowers, birds, and animal motifs. The category also includes tabernacles (kivot; sometimes resembling miniature architecture), seven-branched candlesticks, reliquaries, icon cases (kiot), processional icons (feretron), altar crosses, backdrop crosses, hand-held crosses used in benedictions, collection boxes (skarbnychka), and processional staffs (pateritsa, bakulus, pastoral). These objects frequently bear relief carvings, gilding, and symbolic ornamentation. Metal liturgical and ceremonial objects include chests or arks, tabernacles, reliquaries, small portable arks (pyxes), royal doors, metal covers for icon-painted surfaces (shata, ryza, oklad), book covers, fans on long handles (rypida), large hanging chandeliers (panikadylo), wall-mounted lighting fixtures that reflect candlelight in synagogues (reflectors), Hanukkah lamps, thuribles (kadylo), ritual boxes for storing Sabbath spices (bsamim), Torah crowns, Torah shields (tas), small boxes for storing Torah scrolls (mezuzah), Torah pointers, chalices (potyr), Eucharistic plates (diskoi), metal arches to cover diskoi (stars), double-edged knives with short triangular blades (spears), clergymen's headwear (miters), cross-reliquaries (encolpion), pectoral crosses, clergymen's round-form insignia (panagia), and pastoral staffs (crosiers). These items were often made of bronze, copper, gold, or silver, adorned with precious stones, pearls, and enamels, and featured intricate decorations depicting religious scenes. Ceramic altar crosses sometimes imitate those of wood or metal, and sometimes adorn church facades. This category also includes fragments of objects of the above-mentioned types.

4. Church Furniture and Fixtures —Including iconostases and altars, as well as their decorative frames, columns, cartouches, consoles, cornices, royal doors, and deacon's doors. Component parts when installed in the context of churches may form multi-tiered ensembles and serve as the framing structures for painted icons. These are typically carved from softwood or hardwood, decorated with chalk gesso, gilding, silver gilding (vermeil), and colored lacquers. Stylized grapevines are the most frequently occurring decorative motif. This category also includes altar tables (prestol), protheses (proskomydiynik), canopies (kivoriy), anoloys (analoy), tetrapods (tetrapod), golgothas, tombs of the Lord, ambos (pulpits), thrones (synthronon), monastic benches (stasidias), pews, large chandeliers, and candelabrums of varying sizes. Most frequently carved from wood and embellished to a greater or lesser degree with reliefs, painting, and gilding.

5. Religious Fabrics —Including Christian processional banners (horuhva), various liturgical service cloths, katasarka indittion, ilyton, antimension fabrics made with woodcut or copperplate printing techniques with relics sewn inside, antymins depicting the Burial of Christ, pokrivets, chalice and diskos coverings (vozdukh, plaat, pelena), decorative curtains such as those for the royal doors of iconostases (Katapetasmas), or those for covering a Torah ark (parokhet), decorative elements for synagogue curtains (lambrequin kaporets). Materials include velvet or homespun cloth, sometimes bearing embroidered or appliqué icons, ornamental motifs, and religious scenes or symbolism, and knotted wool. Religious garments include vestments for priests, deacons, and bishops made of white, gold-embroidered fabrics, miters, kippahs, yarmulkes, and prayer shawls (tallits) made of wool, cotton, silk, or linen.

B. Architectural Elements —Objects in this category were produced by skilled craftspeople in a nonindustrial society, with materials often hand-carved and/or made from joined wood, modeled, formed, or painted. Architectural elements are found in stone, wood, ceramic, plaster or stucco, and other painted media used to decorate civic and religious architecture. Approximate date: 200-1917 C.E.

1. Stone —Including capitals, balustrades and parapets, vases, lanterns, brackets or consoles, facade reliefs, mascarons (sculpted faces), and cartouches (scrolls, coats of arms).

2. Wood —Including carved beams (svolok), carved doorways, balustrades, horse-head brackets (konyk), carved or painted window frames (lyshtvy), and shutters. May be adorned with symbolic carvings reflecting traditional Ukrainian styles.

3. Ceramic and Terracotta —Including exterior decorative elements, pipes, roof coverings, chimneys, and echea (acoustic jars). More rarely, may include ceramic cupolas with crosses, capitals, bell towers, and other exterior decorations. Interior architectural elements include ceramic icon cases, altars, and iconostases, frequently decorated with techniques such as relief appliqué, stamping, engraving, and colorful glazes or underglaze painting, tiles for wall and floor cladding, and stoves. Thick wall tiles, especially from the Lviv and Chernihiv regions, feature underglaze painting, imitating Dutch tiles. Hutsul folk tiles depict everyday or military scenes, or vegetal and animal motifs rendered in dark outlines and underglaze painting (engobes) in green, yellow, and brown. Ichnia tiles bear white surfaces and bird motifs.

4. Metal —Including bells and crosses on domes. Bells are hollow, pear-shaped, with bronze, brass, gold, or silver alloy clappers. These are often decorated with relief friezes, figures of saints, dedicatory inscriptions, and coats of arms. Crosses vary in form and may be adorned with geometric patterns ( e.g., wavy, bent rods), plant motifs, or smaller crosses.

5. Glass —Including monumental mosaics and stained glass, colored stained glass found in domestic and religious settings, and small colored glass fragments (smalta) used in mosaics that bear ornamental, figural, or landscape scenes.

C. Manuscripts, Written Documents, and Early Prints —Manuscripts, portions of manuscripts, and works on paper include handmade, handwritten, hand-illustrated and/or illuminated sheets, bound volumes and their bindings, manuscript books, and non-industrial print media. Includes fragments. Approximate date: 900-1917 C.E.

Types include charters, bulls, autographs, and other paper artifacts; liturgical manuscripts, illuminated manuscripts, early printed books adorned with fabric, leather, and metal covers, and parchment. Early pre-industrial centers of printing include Lviv, Ostrih, Derman, Pochaiv, and Kyiv. Prints include woodcuts, engravings, etchings, and lithographs. These may feature images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, saints, and religious feast scenes, sometimes illuminated with watercolors.

D. Ethnological Paintings —Paintings were made by artists who progressed from traditional icon painters, using similar techniques, hand mixing paints, and trained in workshops as apprentices to masters of the craft. Approximate date: 1700-1917 C.E.

1. Icon Paintings on Glass —A popular form of folk art especially in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Hutsulshchyna, Bukovyna, and Pokuttya ethnographic regions; notable for their bright colors and rich floral ornamentation.

2. Paper Cutouts —This category also includes paper cutouts, another type of folk art. These objects are created by cutting forms from paper or thin cardboard and were used in interior decoration mainly in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

E. Military Material —Military material was made by skilled metalworkers and armorers, traditionally working out of a small shop or house—or as employed by an imperial authority—using the same hand-striking process to produce weapons and armor. Approximate date: 1700-1917 C.E. Including standards (bunchuk), maces (pernach), including but not limited to those with metal spikes (buzdyhan), and those with wooden or metal handles, sometimes decorated with precious stones, horsehair, and gold spherical ornaments; sabers, axes (bartka), knives, battle hammers bearing a sharp iron hook attached to a thin handle, pistols, and rifles. Sabers may be decorated with valuable materials such as ivory and gold, and intricate designs. Hutsul bartkas (shepherd's axes) consist of long wooden handles adorned with geometric patterns using embossing, engraving, and inlay techniques. The Crimean Tatars' axe (ay balta) consists of heavily-ornamented, crescent-shaped blades. Pistols and rifles, especially ceremonial ones, feature detailed decorations with engraving, niello, and inlays.

F. Traditional Folk Clothing and Textiles —Traditional folk clothing and textiles were handwoven and sewn by members of guilds, operating in small businesses run out of weavers' homes. Approximate date: 1700-1917 C.E.

1. Traditional Textiles —Including woven or knotted woolen carpets with floral motifs, tapestries, gold-woven products that adorned the walls of magnates' rooms (makata), pile carpets made on vertical looms (kots), rectangular fabrics made of coarse wool, initially woven on a horizontal loom as smooth double-sided carpets (lizhnyk), fabric for covering beds, woven on a horizontal loom with plain or twill weave from hemp or linen threads (vereta), and other domestic textiles, embroidered (rushnyks) or bearing hand-printed ornamental motifs.

2. Folk Clothing —Including items from the Hutsul regions and Carpathian regions such as fur coats made from sable, lynx, and fox fur (shuba), protective vests with sewn-on metal plates (kuyak), sleeveless leather cloaks made from fur and lined with satin (vilchura), fur hats (kuchma), wide belts with up to six buckles with rich metal décor (cheres), small bags (tabivka), and narrow bags for arrows (sahaidak, kolchan). Other garments include embroidered shirts, waist garments, wide-cut pants, narrow trousers, upper garments, jackets, belts, aprons, (all of which may be made of woolen fabric, sometimes dyed red or black), sometimes richly embroidered or brocaded. Embroidered fabrics bear regionally unique decorative and color schemes.

a. Garments of the Cossack type are sewn from long panels (kaftans, zhupans). Items may be made of red, gold-woven, gray, or blue cloth, or silk, with velvet, brocade, or fur details. Outer garments include coats made of sheepskin (kobenyak), cloth coats lined with cotton with fur (bekesha), or loose-cut coats with slit elbow sleeves (delia). Wide belts are made of gold-woven fabric, often highly embellished.

b. Crimean Tatar costume includes wide trousers (don, duman), wide-cut shirts, striped silk dress-coats, linen shirts (colmek-keten), vests (bagr-elek), jackets (marka), kamzols, eastern-style coats (anteri, havtani), sleeveless leather coats, and various types of trousers. These garments are often decorated with braids, cords, lace, and unique handmade buttons.

3. Leather Footwear —Including footwear made of thick cow or pig rawhide (postoly) or Moroccan leather in various colors (sapyantsi), low-heeled women's shoes (cherevyky), and Crimean Tatar soft-soled boots of yellow or black leather (mest).

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866 and, by extension, Executive Order 13563.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1) pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of the Secretary's delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.

Troy A. Miller, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory 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.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive the final details from the event sponsor that the annual Key West Paddle Classic event will be held on September 28, 2024. The Coast Guard has an existing safety zone for this event in 33 CFR 165.786, table to § 165.786, Item No. 4.1; however, the existing regulation only covers the event when it is scheduled on the last weekend of April. The Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay issuing this rule because it is necessary to protect the safety of participants, spectators, the public, and vessels transiting the waters adjacent to Key West, FL.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Key West (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with open water swim events will be a safety concern for persons and vessels in the regulated area. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the 27th Annual Key West Paddle Classic paddle board event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 28, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first event participants, 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last event participants, and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of safety vessels. The event course begins at Higgs Beach in Key West, Florida, moves west to the area offshore of Fort Zachary Taylor Historic State Park, north through Key West Harbor, east through Fleming Key Cut, south through Cow Key Channel, and west returning back to Higgs Beach, in Key West, FL. Approximately 100 paddle boarders and six safety vessels are anticipated to participate in the paddle board event. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the paddle board event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from 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 location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable waters of Key West, Florida, during a paddle board event lasting nine hours. Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 10 hours that will prohibit entry within 100 yards from safety vessels being used to guide event participants, and thus is limited in time and scope. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of appendix A, table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have the potential to be affected by hurricanes and tropical storms on a yearly basis, especially between the months of June and November. Additionally, severe storms generating high winds and rough seas are also common in the winter months. On May 28, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Hurricanes, Tropical Storms, and Other Storms With High Winds; Captain of the Port Zone Sector Delaware Bay (89 FR 46043). There, we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this safety zone. During the comment period that ended June 27, 2024, we received two comments.

As noted above, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are subject to hurricanes and other storms generating high winds from year to year. This rule is necessary to protect mariners, port infrastructure, and the environment during and after these severe weather events. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published May 28, 2024. One comment expressed support for the rule and did not recommend any changes. The other did not address the subject matter of the rule. We are finalizing the regulatory text of this rule without changes from the text proposed in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone during hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds. This safety zone provides for actions to be completed by local industry and vessels in the COTP zone prior to and after landfall of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds threatening the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Port Conditions (WHISKEY, X-RAY, YANKEE, ZULU, and RECOVERY) are standardized Coast Guard terms within the Coast Guard's Atlantic Area for states of operation declared by the COTP and communicated to port facilities, vessels, and members of the Marine Transportation System (MTS). Notice of Port Conditions and their requirements will be given via Marine Safety Information Bulletins and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Actions to be taken by vessels are provided in the language of the rule. In addition, ports and waterfront facilities are encouraged to act when specific Port Conditions are declared. Under Port Condition WHISKEY, all ports and waterfront facilities shall remove all potential flying debris and secure potential flying hazards. Upon declaration of Port Condition X-RAY, all ports and waterfront facilities shall ensure that all requirements under Port Condition WHISKEY are implemented in addition to the removal of all hazardous materials, and securing all loose cargo, and cargo equipment. Upon a declaration of Port Condition YANKEE, all ports and waterfront facilities should ensure that all requirements under Port Condition X-RAY are implemented, and terminal operators shall cease all cargo operations not associated with storm preparations.

Under the rule, the COTP retains flexibility in exercising control over vessel traffic during periods of heavy weather, and the rule allows for the expedited resumption of the MTS following such events. The safety zone consists of all waters of the territorial seas within the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-05. Portions of the safety zone might be activated at different times, as conditions dictated. The regulatory text appears at the end of this document.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the necessity to protect life, port infrastructure, and the environment during hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds. The scope of the regulation is narrow and will only apply when a hurricane, tropical storm, or other storm with high winds impacts the navigable waters of the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone. These events are infrequent and of short duration. Regulatory restrictions will be lifted as soon as practicable.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that would prohibit entry in certain waters of the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone for the duration needed to ensure safe transit of vessels and industry before and after a hurricane, tropical storm, or other storm with high winds. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this action the use of “we,” “us,” or “our” is intended to refer to the EPA. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

Background information. On September 27, 2023, the EPA proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. In this action, we are finalizing certain decisions and revisions for the NESHAP General Provisions based on the 2023 proposal and in response to comments. Other proposed options are still being considered for possible future action, as discussed below. We summarize the comments we timely received regarding aspects of the proposed rule that are directly related to this final rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially impacted by this rule include major sources of HAP that are subject to certain major source NESHAP requirements and that reclassify from a major to an area source of HAP pursuant to the requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, implementing section 112 of the CAA. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this final rule, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under-section-112. Following publication in the Federal Register (FR), the EPA will post the FR version and key technical documents at this same website.

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by November 12, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements established herein.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). Specifically, the EPA is acting pursuant to its general regulatory authority under section 301, and to the specific mandate of section 112(c)(6) of the CAA, which requires the EPA to take action with respect to seven specific, persistent, bioaccumulative HAP. CAA section 112(c)(6) states, “With respect to alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, the Administrator shall, not later than 5 years after November 15, 1990, list categories and subcategories of sources assuring that sources accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4) of this section.”  1

CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to address the seven specific HAPs in two steps. First, CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to identify and list the source categories that account for 90% of the total emissions of the seven HAPs. Next, CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to “assur[e]” that those sources remain subject to the standards the EPA established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(4). Per section 301, the EPA has general authority “to prescribe regulations as are necessary to carry out his function under this chapter.” See 42 U.S.C. 7601(1). Accordingly, the EPA is in this final rule establishing a requirement that the sources in those source categories identified and listed by the EPA under CAA section 112(c)(6) remain subject to the requirements established under CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), as required by CAA section 112(c)(6), even if any such source reclassifies from a major to an area source after the effective date of the final rule.

Some background on the standards the EPA sets under CAA section 112 is helpful to understand the implications of the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement. Under section 112 of the CAA the EPA is required to establish emissions standards for “major sources” and “area sources” of HAP to control and reduce their emissions. Section 112(a)(1) defines “major” source, in relevant part, as “any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, 2 in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants”; and 112(a)(2) defines “area” source, in relevant part, as “any stationary source of hazardous air pollutants that is not a major source.” 42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(1) and (2).

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from major stationary sources, whereas there is typically a one-stage process to develop standards for area sources. Generally, the first stage for major stationary sources involves establishing standards based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT), and the second stage involves evaluating the predicted results of those standards to determine whether additional standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the “residual risk review.” In addition to the residual risk review, section 112(d)(6) of the CAA also requires the EPA to review major and area source standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years and revise the standards as necessary, taking into account any “developments in practices, processes, or control technologies.” This review is commonly referred to as the “technology review.”

In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different requirements for the two types. For major sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of HAP emission reductions achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT “floor.” For area sources, by contrast, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows the EPA discretion to set standards based either on generally available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) or on MACT standards. GACT standards are based on typical performance within a source category and are generally less stringent than MACT standards.

For categories of major sources and any area source categories subject to MACT standards, the second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and addressing any remaining ( i.e., “residual”) risk pursuant to CAA section 112(f) and concurrently conducting a technology review pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). For categories of area sources subject to GACT standards, there is no requirement to address residual risk, but, similar to the major source categories, the section 112(d)(6) technology review is required.

In addition to the general standard setting and review processes described above, CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to ensure that sources responsible for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of seven specified pollutants are subject to standards under sections (d)(2) or (d)(4) of this section. 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(6). To accomplish this, as noted previously, the section required the EPA to list, by November 15, 1995, source categories that account for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of the listed pollutants, and to promulgate CAA section 112(d)(2) or (4) standards for those source categories by November 15, 2000.

As noted earlier, CAA section 112(d)(2) MACT standards take into consideration costs and non-air quality health and environmental impacts. CAA section 112(d)(4), by contrast, authorizes the EPA to set a health-based standard for a limited set of hazardous air pollutants for which a health threshold has been established, and provides that this health-based standard must provide for “an ample margin of safety.” 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(4). In sum, therefore, CAA section 112(c)(6) specifies that the EPA must list source categories that account for 90 percent of the emissions of the seven listed HAPs and “assure” those sources are subject to MACT or health-based emission standards, rather than the GACT standards that generally apply to area sources. Further, the section ensures that sources subject to these NESHAP are also subject to the additional reviews required for major sources under CAA sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6).

The EPA has taken several previous actions to identify and list categories and subcategories of sources that account for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6). In 1998, the EPA issued a document entitled Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17839 (April 10th, 1998). In that document, the EPA explains how it developed a 1990 base-year emissions inventory for the seven HAP enumerated in section 112(c)(6) of the CAA and used that inventory as the baseline for determining whether 90 percent of those emissions are subject to standards. In the same document, based on that inventory, the EPA identified source categories that, cumulatively, met the 90 percent requirement in CAA section 112(c)(6). That is, the EPA determined that emissions from the listed source categories accounted for 90 percent of the total emissions of the seven listed HAP, as of the base-year emissions inventory.

That 1990 baseline inventory and the category listing have undergone several updates since their initial publication in 1998. For example, in a document dated November 8, 2002, the EPA identified 5 area source categories that were no longer needed to meet the 90 percent requirement of CAA section 112(c)(6). National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 112(c)(6) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act, 67 FR 68124 (2002). 3 Further, in the same document, the EPA removed the Open Burning of Scrap Tires source category from the 1990 baseline inventory. Due to the impact these updates had on the inventory, the EPA promulgated emission standards for several additional source categories, 4 while determining that certain other categories or subcategories are not necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement under CAA section 112(c)(6).

In 2001, Sierra Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asserting, among other allegations, that the EPA had failed to promulgate emission standards sufficient to satisfy the 90 percent requirement in CAA section 112(c)(6). See Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 01-1537 (D.D.C.). In an order issued March 31, 2006 (“2006 order”), the district court set a deadline (later extended) for the EPA to complete that task. Sierra Club v. Johnson, 444 F. Supp. 2d 46, 59 (D.D.C. 2006). In the course of that suit, the EPA explained that “once [it] completes emission standards for the remaining source categories under section 112(c)(6), it intends to issue a document that explains how it has satisfied the requirements of section 112(c)(6) in terms of issuing emission standards for the source categories that account for the statutory thresholds identified in section 112(c)(6).” Id.

On March 21, 2011, having promulgated standards sufficient to meet the 90 percent requirement under CAA section 112(c)(6), the EPA published a document in the Federal Register announcing it had met its statutory obligation. Completion of Requirement to Promulgate Emission Standards, 76 FR 15308 (March 21, 2011). The March 21, 2011, document contained the EPA Administrator's conclusion that the “EPA has completed sufficient standards to meet the 90-percent requirement under . . . section 112(c)(6)” (76 FR 15308). The Administrator based that determination on a technical memorandum “document[ing] the actions the Agency has taken to meet these requirements.” Id. The technical memorandum, entitled Emission Standards for Meeting the Ninety Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act and available at Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0505, included an updated 1990 baseline inventory, an updated list of the source categories necessary to meet the 90 percent requirement, and a list of emission standards the EPA has promulgated for these source categories.

In 2011, Sierra Club filed suit in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) challenging the March 21, 2011, document. The D.C. Circuit vacated the document, holding that the document was a legislative rulemaking that must be issued through a notice and comment rulemaking. Sierra Club v. EPA, 699 F.3d 530, 535 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In 2013, Sierra Club filed a motion with the district court, seeking enforcement of the 2006 order. In an opinion dated July 25, 2014, the district court held that the EPA failed to comply with the 2006 order and directed the EPA to initiate a process of notice and comment rulemaking before the Agency reissues, reconsiders or modifies its determination regarding CAA section 112(c)(6).

Therefore, the EPA issued a proposed rule on December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74656), as ordered by the D.C. Circuit, and provided an opportunity for comment on the EPA's proposed determination that it had fulfilled the requirements of CAA section 112(c)(6). On June 3, 2015, the EPA issued a Federal Register document finalizing the EPA's determination that the Agency had promulgated a sufficient number of section 112(d)(2) and (d)(4) emissions standards to satisfy the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of seven specific HAP be subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) (80 FR 31470). 5 As of the 2015 final rule, therefore, the EPA determined that it had “assur[ed]” that “sources accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate emissions of” the seven HAP enumerated in CAA section 112(c)(6) are “subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4).” 42 U.S.C. 112(c)(6).

Shortly after the EPA began promulgating individual NESHAP following the 1990 CAA Amendments, the Agency received multiple requests to clarify when a major source of HAP could avoid CAA section 112 requirements applicable to major sources by taking enforceable limits to constrain its emissions below the major source thresholds and reclassifying as an area source. In response, the EPA issued a 1995 memorandum, referred to as the “1995 Seitz Memorandum,”  6 which provided guidance on timing issues related to avoidance of CAA section 112 requirements for major sources.

In the 1995 Seitz Memorandum, the EPA interpreted the relevant statutory language under CAA section 112 to find that facilities that are major sources of HAP may switch to area source status at any time until the “first compliance date” of the standard. 7 Under this interpretation, facilities that met the major source definition on the first substantive compliance date of an applicable major source NESHAP were required to continue to comply with that major source NESHAP even if the source subsequently became an area source by taking physical or operational limitations on the source's capacity to emit. This position was commonly referred to as the “Once In, Always In” (OIAI) policy.

On January 25, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors, withdrawing the OIAI policy. 8 That memorandum, titled “Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act” and referred to as the Major MACT to Area (MM2A) Memorandum, discussed the statutory provisions that govern when a facility subject to major source NESHAP requirements under section 112 of the CAA may reclassify as an area source and, so long as it remains below the major source thresholds, avoid major source NESHAP requirements and other requirements applicable to major sources under CAA section 112. 9

In the MM2A Memorandum, the EPA announced the future publication of a proposed rule to solicit input from the public on regulatory revisions needed to be consistent with the reading of the statute described in the Memorandum. On July 26, 2019, the EPA proposed regulatory text to implement the reading of the statute discussed in the MM2A Memorandum. 10

The EPA published the 2020 MM2A final rule (85 FR 73854) on November 19, 2020. The rule formalized the withdrawal of the OIAI policy from the 2018 MM2A Memorandum and codified that a major source can reclassify to area source status at any time upon reducing its emissions and potential to emit HAP to below the CAA section 112 major source thresholds.

In September 2023, the EPA proposed to add requirements under the NESHAP program for sources seeking to reclassify from major source status to area source status. See 88 FR 66336, September 27th, 2023. The aim of this proposal was to provide safeguards to prevent reclassified sources from increasing their emissions beyond the major source NESHAP requirements applicable at the time of reclassification. Specifically, the EPA proposed to codify in a new paragraph, 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(iv), that any major source choosing to reclassify to area source status must implement one of the following control methods or a combination: (1) continue to employ the emission control methods ( e.g., control device and/or emission reduction practices) required under the major source NESHAP requirements, including previously approved alternatives under the applicable NESHAP and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR); (2) comply with the control methods prescribed for reclassification under a specific NESHAP subpart; or (3) install and operate the emission controls that the permitting authority has reviewed and approved as ensuring the emissions of HAP from units or activities previously covered will not increase above the emission standard or level that was required under the major source NESHAP requirements at the time of reclassification. For this last option, the proposal would have required the record of the permitting authority decision to identify the specific units and control methods and include the data and analysis for the emission controls as well as the determination that MRR is adequate to assure compliance.

In addition to the safeguards, the EPA also proposed that limits taken by sources to reclassify from major to area sources must be federally enforceable as a condition of reclassification. 11 Specifically, we proposed to codify in a new paragraph, 40 CFR 63.1(c)(6)(iii), that, as a condition of reclassification, any limitations taken by a major source or required by a permitting authority to reclassify to area source status must be federally enforceable. The EPA decided not to propose edits to the definition of PTE under 40 CFR 63.2, opting rather to address the PTE definitions in the New Source Review, Title V, NESHAP, and related programs in a separate rulemaking or guidance at a later date.

Additionally, in light of the special attention Congress paid to specific pollutants in section 112(c)(6) of the CAA, we sought comment on whether additional restrictions are warranted for source categories that are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) for the persistent and bioaccumulative HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6). Specifically, we sought comment on whether any of the following additional restrictions are warranted to achieve Congress' directive that source categories emitting these HAP be subjected to MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4). First, we sought comment on restricting any sources  12 that are subject to a major source NESHAP and that are included in the EPA's 90 percent list for any of the CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP from reclassifying from major to area source status. Second, we sought comment on requiring sources subject to a major source NESHAP to remain subject to that NESHAP for emissions of the section 112(c)(6) HAP even if those sources reclassify and no longer remain subject to the major source NESHAP for emissions of non-112(c)(6) HAP. Third, we considered allowing such sources to reclassify but requiring them to “continue to employ the emission control methods ( e.g., control device and/or emission reduction practices) required under the major source NESHAP requirements, including previously approved alternatives under the applicable NESHAP and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR).” See 88 FR at 66346. Finally, we sought comment on whether any other restrictions on sources or source categories emitting CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP may be warranted.

This action amends the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 to require sources subject to certain major source NESHAP subparts to remain subject to those NESHAP regardless of whether they reclassify to area source status. Specifically, after September 10, 2024, sources that are subject to the NESHAP used to reach the 90 percent requirements articulated in CAA section 112(c)(6) as of September 10, 2024 must remain subject to such NESHAP even if they reclassify to area source status. Additionally, this final rule makes minor amendments to reporting requirements for submission of confidential business information and clarifies what notifications for a reclassifying facility must contain.

The EPA intends for these two actions to be severable from one another. Specifically, the EPA separately analyzed and determined the appropriateness of requirements for those sources that are subject to NESHAP used to reach the 90 percent threshold requirements in CAA section 112(c)(6), and of the unrelated minor amendments and clarifications to notification and reporting requirements for sources that reclassify. Each of the requirements in this final rule is functionally independent, such that each may operate independently of the other. Thus, the EPA has independently considered and adopted each portion of this final rule, and each is severable should there be judicial review. If a court were to invalidate either one of these elements, the EPA intends the remainder of this action to remain effective.

Importantly, we have designed the different elements of this final rule separately and each can function sensibly and independently. Specifically, the requirement for sources to remain subject to NESHAP listed under CAA section 112(c)(6) will operate independently and is in no way impacted by the separate clarifications to reporting requirements for sources that reclassify, and vice versa. Further, the supporting bases for each element of the final rule reflect the Agency's judgment that the element is independently justified and appropriate, and that each element can function independently even if one or more other parts of the rule has been set aside.

The revisions to General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 being promulgated in this action are effective on September 10, 2024.

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses.

As described in section II.C. of this preamble, the EPA proposed to add requirements for sources that reclassify from major to area source status. This included proposed requirements for reclassified sources to take federally enforceable limits on their potential to emit, and for reclassified sources to maintain the MACT-level controls even after reclassification, which were termed “safeguards.” The EPA also sought comment on whether there should be additional restrictions on sources that emit specific pollutants covered by CAA section 112(c)(6).

In the 2023 proposal, the EPA noted that the proposed “safeguards” would prevent emission increases from sources that elect to reclassify, and the EPA sought comment on whether additional measures or limitations were needed for source categories that are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) for HAP listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(6).

The EPA is not, at this time, finalizing the proposed safeguards. During the public comment period, the EPA received substantial comments regarding the proposed safeguard requirements, and the EPA is still evaluating those comments. Because the issue requires more study, the EPA is leaving the 2023 proposal open as we assess finalizing a rule based on that aspect of the proposal. The EPA continues to be concerned about the possibility of sources reclassifying and then increasing emissions above the levels previously allowed under the applicable NESHAP. Therefore, the EPA continues to consider comments on the 2023 proposal and is working to develop solutions to prevent emissions backsliding. As discussed in the 2023 proposal, the EPA recognizes that backsliding would not be consistent with the intent or spirit of the Act.

In the interim, the EPA finds there is sufficient clarity in the language of CAA section 112(c)(6) and in related public comments submitted on the proposed rule to finalize a requirement that sources in source categories used to satisfy that section's 90-percent threshold must remain subject to the relevant NESHAP even if they reclassify to area source status. 13 This action addresses the EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) to assure sources from the listed source categories are subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) controls.

The EPA is continuing to evaluate whether additional actions are warranted to mitigate the impacts of the 2020 MM2A final rule, including to address the potential that sources may reclassify and then increase HAP emissions above the levels allowed under the applicable NESHAP. Since the EPA is only taking final action with respect to a limited aspect of the September 2023 proposal, we are only responding to comments related to the aspects of the proposal that we are finalizing in this action. 14 The EPA continues to consider other aspects of the 2023 proposal, including safeguards and federal enforceability for limits used to support reclassification of sources. We will respond to the remaining comments when we take final action on other aspects of the September 2023 proposal.

Comment: Several commenters agreed with the EPA that the reclassification of sources that agree to keep their aggregate emissions of hazardous air pollutants below the major source threshold should not result in those sources avoiding compliance with the MACT standards for the seven persistent and bioaccumulative air toxics listed in CAA section 112(c)(6). The commenters suggested that allowing sources that reclassify to avoid the CAA section 112(c)(6) MACT requirements would defeat one of the primary purposes of the Act's air toxics provisions, which is to ensure sources that emit these specific pollutants are subject to the most protective standards possible. Several commenters argued that maintaining the requirements placed on these sources through the NESHAP program will ensure that the EPA meets Congress' directive and ensures continued protection of public health.

One commenter argued that the EPA is legally required to include a restriction to expressly prevent reclassification by sources subject to a major source NESHAP used to reach the 90 percent threshold for the specific pollutants listed in CAA section 112(c)(6), because that threshold reflects Congressional expectations on the scope of program coverage for specified pollutants, and the EPA cannot now ignore CAA section 112(c)(6). The commenter asserted that the EPA has authority to impose restrictions to protect overall NESHAP program integrity, Specifically, the commenter asserted the EPA should account for the fact that NESHAP standards, including those developed for CAA section 112(c)(6), were developed and implemented for decades without any considered design of allowing major sources to drop from major source NESHAP regulation. The commenter also asserted that the EPA has full authority to disallow reclassification by sources that were relevant to satisfaction of CAA section 112(c)(6) requirements, and the EPA may choose to disallow this on a temporary basis at least until a future program review is completed on the impacts of the MM2A final rule, which could be combined with future rulemakings to ensure that area source standards are developed or strengthened to align with their major source NESHAP categories.

Response: As discussed further in section IV.A.4. of this preamble, the EPA agrees with commenters that CAA section 112(c)(6) obligates the EPA to assure sources accounting for 90 percent of emissions of seven specific HAP remain subject to standards under sections 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) of the CAA. Allowing the sources subject to the NESHAP used to reach the 90 percent thresholds for these pollutants to reclassify and thereby avoid complying with those NESHAP would undermine the statutory requirement to “assur[e]” that the sources regulated under CAA section 112(c)(6) remain subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). In this final rule, the EPA is adding a restriction to the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 that will require sources that are subject to the NESHAP used to reach the CAA's 90 percent requirements for CAA section 112(c)(6) as of September 10, 2024 to remain subject to those specific major source NESHAP subparts regardless of whether they reclassify to area source status after September 10, 2024.

Comment: One commenter argued that the 2020 MM2A rule eliminated the EPA's ability to ensure sources subject to previously promulgated standards continue to comply with MACT standards. Therefore, the commenter claimed that CAA section 112(c)(6) requires that the Agency prevent any sources within the categories the EPA has used to reach the statutory 90-percent threshold for any of the CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP from reclassifying from major source status to area source status, because in the commenter's view, reclassification would allow the sources to increase their emissions above the levels allowed in the applicable NESHAP.

Two commenters argued that the language of CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to assure that a minimum of 90 percent of emissions of each pollutant are subject to MACT standards, and that the standards must be MACT limits promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(2) and not substitute restrictions adopted under other authorities. One commenter noted, for example, there are no health thresholds enabling the use of standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the pollutants listed in CAA section 112(c)(6).

Two commenters noted that CAA section 112(c)(6) creates an independent mandate that comprises both listing sources and promulgating standards ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 699 F.3d 530, 531 (D.C. Cir. 2012)) and thereby imposes a substantive duty to issue CAA section 112(c)(6) standards, and to undertake any additional source-listing or standard setting required to reach the 90 percent threshold. Id. at 535. The commenters also noted that the CAA eliminates any prerequisite that the EPA make “a finding of health or environmental threat from area sources to determine if such sources need to be included to meet the 90 percent requirement” (63 FR 17,838, 17,842 (April 10, 1998)) and also requires the EPA “to establish and subject these listed sources to MACT standards, . . . even if it would have otherwise had the discretion to apply a less-stringent standard to any area sources on the list.” ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 863 F.3d 834, 835 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Sierra Club II).)

One commenter noted that the EPA has purported to satisfy those duties by listing and promulgating standards for a series of source categories that contain the sources accounting for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the seven pollutants listed in CAA section 112(c)(6). The commenter also noted, however, that these source categories also include hundreds of sources that the EPA predicts could be eligible for reclassification based on the EPA's analysis of the categories and sources that the EPA believes likely to achieve cost savings by escaping MACT. (EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0330-0020). The commenter concluded that the EPA lacks the statutory authority to exempt sources from MACT standards within the categories it has identified as necessary to satisfy CAA section 112(c)(6)'s mandate.

Two commenters stated that the EPA should confirm that because sources in the categories on its CAA section 112(c)(6) list are minimally necessary to satisfy CAA section 112(c)(6)'s independent requirements, the Agency cannot allow those sources to escape MACT standards, and the EPA should finalize a rule requiring sources in those categories to continue to comply with MACT standards regardless of whether their post-compliance emissions exceed the major-source threshold. The commenters stated that otherwise the 2020 MM2A rule, even with the additional safeguards contained in the 2023 MM2A proposal, would be flatly inconsistent with CAA section 112(c)(6).

Response: The EPA agrees that CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to assure that sources accounting for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) are subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). The EPA is promulgating a requirement that assures that outcome for sources subject to the NESHAP used reach the 90 percent thresholds required by CAA section 112(c)(6). See section IV.A.4 for discussion of the EPA's rationale for the promulgated requirement. Such sources may still reclassify from major to area source status, but they must remain subject to the NESHAP used to assure that 90 percent of the emissions of the section 112(c)(6)-listed HAP are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4).

Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA also has authority, and an obligation, to adopt the proposed restriction to prevent CAA section 112(c)(6) sources from reclassifying as a necessary revision under CAA section 112(d)(6) under the decision in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2020), which found that CAA section 112(d)(6) obligates the EPA to revise standards to correct “unlawfully omitted” controls. The commenter also asserted that the statutory authority for restricting reclassification for CAA section 112(c)(6) sources is independent and severable of those supporting the EPA's other proposed safeguards.

Response: The EPA agrees that the statutory authority under CAA section 112(c)(6) is distinct from the EPA's authority for proposed safeguards. However, the EPA does not agree that CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the amendments included in this final rule. Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) requires the EPA to address regulatory gaps when the EPA undertakes a CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review, such as establishing missing MACT standards for listed air toxins known to be emitted from a particular source category. In this rule, the EPA has determined that CAA section 112(c)(6) obligates the EPA to assure that sources subject to the NESHAP used to establish 90 percent thresholds under that provision remain subject to those NESHAP, such that the sources in that source category remain in the pool of sources evaluated pursuant to the reviews conducted under CAA sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6). However, this authority under CAA section 112(c)(6) is distinct from the EPA's gap-filling obligation in promulgating technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6) pursuant to Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020). See section IV.A.4. of this preamble for discussion of our rationale and statutory authority.

Comment: One commenter urged the EPA to require reclassified sources to continue to comply with HAP-specific MACT standards and asserted that those sources should not be allowed to characterize as “controls” measures that would produce an increase in any HAP. The commenter noted that many of the regulated HAP are harmful in extraordinarily small quantities and are specifically listed in CAA section 112(c)(6), whereas other HAP are not. The commenter predicted that aggregate limits, even for sources outside the scope of CAA section 112(c)(6), would allow for dangerous increases in toxics that are only ever emitted in very small quantities, and of which affected communities would have no knowledge.

Response: As discussed further in section IV.A.4. of this preamble, the EPA has determined that given the special attention paid by Congress to the specific HAP included in CAA section 112(c)(6), the agency must disallow sources subject to NESHAP used to meet the 90 percent requirement of CAA section 112(c)(6) from avoiding compliance with those NESHAP through reclassification. Therefore, such sources must remain subject to those NESHAP, regardless of whether they reclassify to area source status.

However, the EPA is not at this time finalizing the proposed safeguards. During the public comment period, the EPA received substantial comments regarding the proposed safeguard requirements, and the EPA is still evaluating those comments. Because the issue requires more study, the EPA is leaving the proposal open as the EPA assesses finalizing a rule based on that aspect of the 2023 proposal. The EPA continues to be concerned about the possibility of sources increasing emissions as a result of reclassification and continues to consider comments on the 2023 proposal. In the interim, to address this concern in part, the EPA finds there is sufficient clarity regarding a subset of MACT-subject sources—those in categories relied on to satisfy CAA section 112(c)(6)—to justify acting now by finalizing a requirement for CAA section 112(c)(6)-affected sources to remain subject to the specific NESHAP that are used to meet the 90 percent thresholds under CAA section 112(c)(6) regardless of whether the sources reclassify.

Comment: Two commenters stated that allowing facilities to reclassify does not jeopardize the EPA's original goal of regulating 90 percent of the emissions of CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP because only 200 facilities have reclassified since the EPA changed its policy towards reclassification (see 88 FR 66349). One commenter added that those reclassifications do not automatically result in an increase in HAP emissions to just under the major source thresholds from detuning of controls.

Response: As discussed in section IV.A.4. of this preamble, the EPA has determined that allowing sources that reclassify to avoid the NESHAP used to meet the statutory requirement of CAA section 112(c)(6) is inconsistent with the Congressional mandate that the EPA “assur[e]” sources accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of the seven specific HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) are subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a requirement that sources subject to these NESHAP must continue to comply even if the sources reclassify to area source status. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that such a restriction would only be justified if there were past evidence of sources' taking advantage of reclassification to increase their emissions to just below the major source thresholds. Congress clearly intended sources in the section 112(c)(6) source categories to continue to be subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards, rather than GACT standards or whatever other standards (if any) apply to area sources in the source category. The EPA disagrees with the comment that we can assume that source categories required to reach the 90 percent threshold in CAA section 112(c)(6) will continue to be subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) merely because there have not been a large number of reclassifications to date. The number of reclassifications to date is not relevant to ensuring that the EPA meets the statutory requirement in CAA section 112(c)(6). This action seeks to assure that sources subject to the NESHAP used to meet the statutory 90 percent requirement remain subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), as section 112(c)(6) requires. As discussed further in section IV.A.4. of this preamble, the EPA finds this action is needed to meet the Agency's statutory obligation to “assure” that sources that account for 90 percent of the emissions of the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) remain subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), given that the 2020 MM2A rule would otherwise permit such sources to reclassify to area source status and no longer be subject to major source NESHAP requirements.

Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should not adopt additional restrictions on MM2A for sources of persistent and bioaccumulative HAP under CAA section 112(c)(6) because the proposed “safeguards” in the 2023 proposal are sufficient without further restrictions. The commenter asserted that if the 2020 MM2A rule operates properly, it should incentivize major sources to become area sources, through the adoption of innovative pollution control strategies—whether those are based on elements of existing major source NESHAP or are based on technological or material breakthroughs.

Response: The EPA has determined that the final amendments are required by CAA section 112(c)(6). The EPA is not at this time finalizing the proposed safeguards. During the public comment period, the EPA received substantial comments regarding the proposed safeguard requirements, and the EPA is still evaluating those comments. Because the issue requires more study, the EPA is leaving the proposal open as the EPA assesses finalizing a rule based on that aspect of the 2023 proposal. The EPA continues to be concerned about the possibility of sources increasing emissions as a result of reclassification and continues to consider comments on the 2023 proposal. In the interim, to address this concern in part, the EPA finds there is sufficient clarity regarding a subset of MACT-subject sources—those in categories relied on to satisfy CAA section 112(c)(6)—to justify acting now by finalizing a requirement for CAA section 112(c)(6)-affected sources to remain subject to the specific NESHAP that are used to meet the 90 percent thresholds under CAA section 112(c)(6) regardless of whether the sources reclassify.

Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA has no authority to impose constraints on reclassification under CAA section 112(c)(6). The commenter asserted that the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement for the EPA to list and regulate a sufficient number of source categories to “assur[e] that sources accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate emissions of each pollutant [listed under CAA section 112(c)(6)] are subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4)” is unambiguously a one-time requirement. The commenter argued that it does not impose any obligation on the EPA to monitor the regulated source categories and make adjustments over time to maintain the 90 percent requirement. Similarly, the commenter asserted this provision imposes no obligation on affected sources to continue to comply with a NESHAP that the EPA relied upon in making the 90 percent determination. The commenter added it would be unreasonable in any event to construe the statute as imposing such obligations because the EPA would forever have to track the number of affected sources, the emissions of such affected sources, and changes to those sources that might affect the EPA's prior 90 percent determination, and the EPA would be required to adjust existing emissions standards or impose new emissions standards to maintain 90 percent coverage.

Response: This rule does not revisit the 2015 determination that sufficient source categories have been subjected to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) to satisfy the section 112(c)(6) 90 percent requirement. However, as discussed further in section IV.A.4., the EPA has determined that the CAA requires that the EPA set standards sufficient to “assure” that sources in the categories and subcategories used to reach the 90 percent threshold are subject to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards. The EPA's determination of which NESHAP are necessary to achieve the 90 percent thresholds was made prior to the MM2A rulemaking, at a time when major sources, under the OIAI policy, were required to continue to comply with previously applicable major source NESHAP, even if the sources reduced emissions below major source thresholds. Allowing for sources subject to the NESHAP required to meet the 90 percent threshold to no longer be subject to these standards is contrary to the Agency's obligation to “assur[e]” those sources remain subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or (4). The limitation promulgated today implements the statutory requirement under CAA section 112(c)(6) to assure source categories accounting for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of the specific listed HAP are subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards. Congress could not have envisioned requiring the EPA to list and regulate categories and subcategories of sources, and to assure those categories and subcategories of sources are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(4), only to have those sources reclassify and avoid the standards that Congress explicitly required the EPA to establish for these source categories. Therefore, we have determined that even if a facility reclassifies, the sources at the facility that are subject to these NESHAP must remain subject, to assure they are subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), as required by CAA section 112(c)(6).

Comment: A commenter opposed the option the EPA requested public comment on that would require sources to comply with the applicable major source standards for the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) while allowing sources to reclassify for other HAP. The commenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority to apply GACT instead of MACT standards for area source emissions of pollutants other than the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6). However, the commenter asserted that the EPA did not adequately justify why GACT standards would be more appropriate than MACT for all source categories rather than the rule-specific decisions the EPA has made in the past when developing MACT standards for area source standards promulgated under CAA section 112(c)(6) and GACT standards for other HAP from those area source categories. In addition, the commenter explained that this option would be impractical because the EPA relies on surrogates for the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6), and there is no rule-specific analysis that could be used to support a pollutant-by-pollutant reconciliation of the 2020 MM2A Rule with the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirements for each pollutant. The commenter argued that the EPA did not explain how this proposed option would support Congress' goals of reducing HAP emissions and associated public health risks from these pollutants. Therefore, the commenter recommended that the EPA prevent CAA section 112(c)(6) listed sources from reclassifying as area sources for all HAP.

Similarly, another commenter emphasized that if the EPA does not completely repeal the 2020 MM2A rule, the EPA should not allow sources of the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) to reclassify as area sources and avoid the required emission reductions because the CAA specifically requires the EPA to ensure that 90 percent of the aggregate emissions for each pollutant are reduced to the maximum degree achievable.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that it would not be appropriate to require sources of the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) to continue to comply only with standards addressing those CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP while no longer complying with other parts of the same NESHAP that do not directly address the 112(c)(6) HAP. As the commenter states, many of these NESHAP regulate the CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP through surrogates and it would be impractical to attempt to bifurcate compliance with a NESHAP. There is often a large degree of overlap in the controls, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that deal with CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP and other HAP. It would create unnecessary burden and confusion to require sources to separate emissions of CAA section 112(c)(6) HAP from other pollutants. As explained further in section IV.A.4. below, the EPA finds that CAA section 112(c)(6) requires that while sources subject to NESHAP used for 112(c)(6) can still reclassify under the 2020 MM2A rule for purposes of other NESHAP not used to meet the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirements, those sources must continue to comply with all aspects of the CAA section 112(c)(6)-listed NESHAP regardless of whether they reclassify to area source status.

Comment: Several commenters asked the EPA to not allow major source emitters of mercury, dioxins, and PCBs and the other persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) to reclassify as area sources, increase HAP emissions, and avoid monitoring and reporting requirements. Another commenter recommended that the EPA require all sources that emit persistent, bioaccumulative, or highly toxic HAP to follow the applicable NESHAP's emission control methods and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. One commenter emphasized that sources must comply with standards under CAA section 112(d)(2), and the EPA must not allow substitute standards, which could result in higher HAP emissions.

Response: The EPA agrees with commenters that sources used to meet the CAA's requirement to subject sources of 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of the HAP listed in 112(c)(6) should remain subject to those NESHAP, regardless of whether they reclassify to area source status. See section IV.A.4. for further discussion of our rationale.

In this action, the EPA is finalizing requirements specific to CAA section 112(c)(6)-affected source categories. Specifically, to fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation to assure that sources accounting for 90 percent of the emissions of the seven HAP listed in section 112(c)(6) are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), the EPA is requiring that such sources remain subject to the relevant NESHAP for their source category regardless of whether the sources reclassify to area-source status. The EPA finds that the 2020 MM2A rulemaking interfered with our obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), because that rulemaking allowed major sources to reclassify to area source status but did not address the section 112(c)(6) requirement that such sources remain subject to standards issued under section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4). The Agency is therefore taking this action to assure that even if CAA section 112(c)(6)-affected sources reclassify, they remain subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). The EPA finds that this interpretation of CAA section 112(c)(6) comports with the text and purpose of the statute, relevant case law, and the context of CAA section 112(c)(6) within CAA section 112. The EPA is not revisiting our determination that we do not have an ongoing obligation to update the list of source categories used to reach the CAA section 112(c)(6) 90 percent requirements.

In this action the EPA is fulfilling our obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), which provides that with respect to seven persistent and bioaccumulative HAP, the EPA shall “list categories and subcategories of sources assuring that sources accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4).” The EPA finds the best interpretation of CAA section 112(c)(6) is that the provision required the EPA to “list” source categories and “assure” that sources within those categories are and remain “subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4).” That is, we find that CAA section 112(c)(6) established two obligations for EPA: (1) to list categories and subcategories of sources to reach the 90 percent threshold; and (2) to assure such sources are subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) requirements. The EPA satisfied the first obligation by listing and identifying categories and subcategories of sources to account for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the seven HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) in prior actions, which are discussed in section II.B. of this preamble. When we issued our listing determinations, the OIAI policy in effect at that time ensured the second obligation—to assure that affected sources are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4)—would be satisfied in perpetuity, because listed sources could not avoid CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) controls by reclassifying. However, since the EPA withdrew the OIAI policy and allowed major sources to reclassify to area source status, and no longer be subject to major source NESHAP requirements and as a result possibly relaxing their emissions controls, the EPA finds that we are now obligated to promulgate this rulemaking to assure that sources in the listed categories nonetheless remain subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4).

For these reasons, the EPA finds it is necessary to require that any source subject to major source NESHAP used to reach the CAA section 112(c)(6) 90 percent thresholds on September 10, 2024 remains subject to the same NESHAP regardless of whether the source reclassifies. In other words, a facility cannot avoid these CAA section 112(c)(6)-specific NESHAP by otherwise reclassifying from major to area source status after the effective date of this final rule. This final rule does not prevent reclassification for such sources. If a source is subject to multiple NESHAP, including some that are used to reach the CAA section 112(c)(6) 90 percent thresholds and others that are not, the source must remain subject to the CAA section 112(c)(6) NESHAP but is not required to remain subject to other major source NESHAP after reclassification.

The EPA finds support for this action in the special attention Congress paid to the seven HAP in CAA section 112(c)(6), by introducing additional requirements for these specific pollutants. The EPA finds that by allowing sources emitting these seven HAP to reclassify to area source status without maintaining CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) requirements for the NESHAP used to meet the 90 percent thresholds under CAA section 112(c)(6), the 2020 MM2A rule violated Congress' mandate that the EPA “assure” these sources are subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4) requirements. This mandate reflects Congress' clear intent that the EPA not only list source categories sufficient to cover 90 percent of the seven HAP identified in section 112(c)(6), but also ensure that these source categories remain subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4), as opposed to the lesser GACT-level standards that frequently apply to area sources. In light of the ability of a major source to reclassify to an area source at any time as a result of the 2020 MM2A final rule, the EPA finds that the best way to achieve Congress' direction to, “assur[e] that sources accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under subsection (d)(2) or (d)(4),” is for CAA section 112(c)(6) listed source categories to maintain CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) controls and other requirements in the NESHAP. This will also ensure that any future revisions to these NESHAP ( e.g., promulgated under CAA sections 112(f) or 112(d)(6) to amend the applicable NESHAP) will apply to these sources. Sources covered by CAA section 112(c)(6)-listed NESHAP that are subject to title V permitting requirements remain subject to those requirements if they reclassify to area source status. In general, area sources subject to a NESHAP are required to have a title V permit unless the EPA has exempted the source category from title V permit. See, e.g., 40 70.3(b)(2). In addition, because certain NESHAP require sources to comply with title V permitting requirements, sources that remain subject to such NESHAP through this rulemaking must therefore also continue to comply with title V permitting requirements.

The EPA finds that its interpretation of CAA section 112(c)(6) also comports with the D.C. Circuit's description of the EPA's CAA section 112(c)(6) obligations in Sierra Club v. EPA, 863 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and is supported by commenters to the 2023 MM2A proposal. In Sierra Club v. EPA, the court read CAA section 112(c)(6) to create two requirements for the EPA: (1) to list categories and subcategories of sources of the seven specific HAP that account for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each; and (2) to establish and subject the listed sources to MACT standards. 863 F.3d 834, 835 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In that case, the court explained that CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA, “to establish and subject these listed sources to MACT standards, . . . even if [the EPA] would have otherwise had the discretion to apply a less-stringent standard to any area sources on the list.” Id. Two commenters to the 2023 MM2A proposed rule agreed with this interpretation, stating that CAA section 112(c)(6) creates an independent mandate that comprises both listing sources and promulgating standards. Further, these commenters noted that allowing CAA section 112(c)(6) sources to reclassify to avoid meeting MACT standards would defeat the primary purpose of the provision, which is to ensure that both major and area sources of these specific HAP are subject to the most protective standards possible. We note that a number of area source categories have been subjected to MACT standards under CAA section 112(c)(6), including gold mines, electric arc furnace steelmaking, and area source coal fired boilers because these sources emit the specific HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6).

The EPA has previously established the list of source categories comprising the 90 percent thresholds in prior rulemakings and is not re-opening that determination. In this regard, the EPA is not revisiting the finding in the 2020 MM2A rulemaking (84 FR 36311) that it would not be reasonable to read CAA section 112(c)(6) to require an unattainable goal of continuing to meet the 90 percent threshold requirement even as overall emissions decline due to compliance with MACT standards. In that rulemaking, however, the EPA did not sufficiently consider the import of allowing 112(c)(6)-affected sources to reclassify—namely that in some cases, such sources could escape MACT standards and thereby undermine the protections that Congress laid out in CAA section 112(c)(6).

Prior to the 2018 MM2A memo and 2020 MM2A rulemaking, the EPA had previously satisfied our obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) to “assure” sources in listed source categories remain subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards, because no major NESHAP sources were able to reclassify as area sources after the first substantive compliance date of the applicable NESHAP. However, now that major sources are able to reclassify at any time as a result of the 2020 MM2A final rule, the EPA finds this action is necessary to ensure that both obligations reflected in CAA section 112(c)(6) are met. Because of the 2020 MM2A rulemaking, CAA section 112(c)(6)-listed major sources may currently reclassify to area source status without any requirement that they remain subject to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards—thereby thwarting the second mandate of CAA section 112(c)(6). This rule addresses that problem.

The EPA's prior actions and statements regarding CAA section 112(c)(6) are not at odds with this action. The EPA's prior CAA section 112(c)(6) actions focused on listing source categories to satisfy the 90 percent threshold requirement. However, because the OIAI policy was in place at the time of those actions, the EPA did not consider that sources subject to the listed NESHAPs could subsequently reclassify, and that the EPA's obligation to assure that those listed source categories are subject to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(4) standards could be abrogated. In the 2015 listing rulemaking, the EPA explained, “CAA section 112(c)(6) requires the EPA to ensure that source categories responsible for at least 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the 7 specified pollutants are subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4)” (80 FR 31470, 31471, June 3, 2015). Because the OIAI policy was in place at the time of that rulemaking, the EPA had no occasion to consider that a facility included in the listed source categories identified in that rulemaking would be able to reclassify after the first substantive compliance date and subsequently evade CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) standards. The EPA noted at the time of the 2015 rulemaking that the “CAA section 112(c)(6) determination is a simple, discretionary accounting of the EPA's previous regulatory efforts.” The EPA continues to agree with that conclusion in that the first aspect of the EPA's CAA section 112(c)(6) authority, and what was addressed in that rulemaking, was a listing exercise. This action is meant to maintain the status quo by ensuring that sources in those previously listed source categories that account for 90 percent of the enumerated HAP in CAA section 112(c)(6) remain subject to the standards called for in the statute.

In the 2020 MM2A rulemaking the EPA disagreed with commenters who claimed that CAA section 112(c)(6) created a continuous obligation such that affected sources could not reclassify. The EPA does not revisit that determination here, but in any event the Agency's reason for disagreement with such comments is distinct from the Agency's rationale here. This rulemaking does not upset the previously established 90 percent thresholds, nor create a “never-ending cycle of listing and regulation in order to achieve an unattainable goal of ensuring that 90 percent of emissions are regulated,” which the EPA expressed concerns about in the 2020 MM2A rule (85 FR 73861) and does not reconsider here. Rather this rulemaking closes a regulatory gap to address the EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) that was opened with the 2018 MM2A memorandum and 2020 rulemaking. Further, this rulemaking does not prevent any source from reclassifying, rather we are adding requirements to ensure that reclassification for certain sources does not undermine Congress's intent that these sources are subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4).

The EPA's authority for this action is distinct from the EPA's authority to either allow or prevent sources subject to a NESHAP applicable only to major sources from reclassifying ( i.e., the MM2A and OIAI policies). As the EPA explained in the 2020 MM2A final rule, those policies centered on the “major source” and “area source” definitions under CAA sections 112(a)(1) and (2). By contrast, in this rulemaking, the EPA is acting to fulfill an obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) that applies regardless of how the Agency addresses the broader question of whether major CAA section 112 sources may reclassify.

Though not implicated in this action, we believe the broader questions regarding reclassification deserve further consideration. The EPA will consider revisiting these questions in a future action. Legal and policy questions surrounding the 2020 MM2A rule remain unsettled. The EPA finds there is general support in the text, purpose, and legislative history of CAA section 112 for the idea that certain sources should maintain MACT standards even if they reclassify. The EPA believes that allowing sources to increase their emissions after reclassification beyond the level allowed under the relevant NESHAP does not comport with the broader structure of CAA section 112. If such emissions increases were contemplated by the statute, Congress would set MACT standards at either (1) the maximum degree of emissions reduction, or (2) reductions sufficient to bring emissions below the major source threshold, whichever is less stringent. Clearly, Congress did not do so. In fact, Congress acknowledged the possibility of requiring elimination of HAP emissions through MACT standards (CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)). At present, however, the EPA is not addressing this discrepancy. Rather, we are addressing only CAA section 112(c)(6)-affected sources, while we continue to evaluate ways to address the tension between MM2A and the requirements of the rest of CAA section 112.

In the interest of timely addressing what the EPA finds is a particular concern due to the need to fulfill CAA section 112(c)(6), the EPA is finalizing this action to apply only prospectively, i.e., just with respect to sources that have not yet reclassified. The EPA is not at this time requiring sources that have already reclassified to come back into compliance with the relevant NESHAP, as this would involve complicated questions about appropriate compliance schedules among other issues. However, the EPA continues to consider whether additional actions are needed for sources that have already reclassified.

In the September 2023 proposal, the EPA proposed that reclassifications that occur after the effective date of this action will be effective upon the date of electronic submittal of the notification to the EPA. Additionally, the EPA proposed to clarify the original intent of the language in 40 CFR 63.9(j) to more clearly indicate that applications for reclassification must be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and contain the information required in 40 CFR 63.9(j)(1) through (4). We also proposed to update the procedures for submittal of confidential business information to include electronic submittal procedures.

We received significant public comments on the proposed clarifications related to reclassification effective date and submission of the required notification of reclassification on the interaction between the proposal and state permitting programs. We have determined that these comments warrant further evaluation and are not finalizing these aspects of the proposal in this action. We also received public comments on the clarifications to the notification already required under 40 CFR 63.9(j). These comments and our responses are in section IV.B.3. below. We did not receive public comments on the proposed changes to the CBI submittal procedures.

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed requirement that reclassifications will only become effective once a permit containing the proposed enforceable requirements is issued and electronic notification is submitted to the EPA through CEDRI, per 40 CFR 63.9(j), is inconsistent with how permits and legal enforceability have historically been understood under the CAA. The commenter recommended that the EPA should not require electronic notification to be an element of determining reclassification. The commenter explained that if applicable major source NESHAP continue to apply until electronic notification is submitted, permits issued to reclassifying sources would need to include a compliance schedule for both the applicable major source NESHAP requirements and the safeguards because both would be applicable until electronic certification could be submitted.

One commenter agreed that sources should notify the Agency of reclassification and such notification is for everyone's benefit as it makes clear which regulatory standards apply to sources upon reclassification.

One commenter agreed that emission and PTE change notifications should be submitted through CEDRI to increase public access to this information. Another commenter requested additional clarification regarding the content and format of the information that would be required to be submitted through CEDRI, and 2 commenters generally supported the proposed notification requirement if it would not be too burdensome. A commenter supported the requirement that the reclassification effective date must match the electronic notification submittal date to the EPA. Otherwise, the commenter expressed concerns that sources would not provide adequate notice before reclassifying, which would be “neither administrable nor logically tenable” and could make monitoring efforts more difficult.

Two commenters maintained that the proposed notification requirement would be burdensome and unnecessary and pointed out that the EPA does not currently require this type of reporting for Prevention of Significant Deterioration, Nonattainment New Source Review, or title V opt-outs. In addition, several commenters remarked that reclassified sources are already required to submit notifications of any permit modifications under the title V program, subject to related permitting authority requirements and make reclassification information available to the public through the state permitting process. One commenter warned that the proposed requirement could supersede enforceable permit conditions and result in potential compliance concerns for sources and permitting agencies.

Several commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement that future reclassifications would not be effective until the source electronically submits the notification to the EPA. One commenter contended that the EPA does not have the authority under CAA section 112 and that the EPA did not identify the CAA provision for this proposed requirement. The commenter emphasized that according to the definitions of “major source” and “area source” in CAA sections 112(a)(1) and (2), a source's HAP PTE is the primary factor for identifying major versus area sources, and 2 commenters indicated that a source's reclassification effective date should coincide with the effective date of the change in PTE. Furthermore, one commenter asserted that since the EPA did not explain the legal basis for the proposed requirement to link reclassification effectiveness to the electronic notification submittal, the proposed requirement would violate CAA section 307(d)(3).

A commenter objected to the proposed approach that additional requirements would apply to prior reclassifications. The commenter explained that major source status and associated obligations cease after reclassifying to area source status, so the EPA would not have the statutory authority to impose new, additional requirements for sources that already reclassified.

Response: In this final action, the EPA is codifying the clarifying language regarding the information that is already required in the notification that must be submitted pursuant to section 40 CFR 63.9(j) by sources that reclassify. This clarifying language does not substantively change what is already required to be submitted by sources that reclassify from major to area source status. Because this is a clarification of existing requirements there is no added burden related to the clarifications to reporting language made in this final action. Regarding the comments associated to reclassification effective date and submission of the required notification of reclassification and the interaction between the proposal and state permitting programs, we have determined that these comments warrant further evaluation and we are not responding to these comments nor finalizing these aspects of the proposal in this action.

Comment: One commenter states that the EPA did not publish the proposed regulatory language in the Federal Register . Instead, the commenter notes that the EPA placed the regulatory language in a separate document in the docket. The commenter asserts that the EPA runs the risk of creating discrepancies between the description of the proposed text in the Federal Register and the proposed regulatory text available in the docket. Such discrepancies prevent source owners/operators and other stakeholders, including members of the general public who may not have sufficient familiarity with online dockets, from receiving adequate notice of the EPA's proposed action, thus impairing their ability to provide informed comments. According to the commenter, the EPA also runs the risk of running afoul of its statutory duty under the Administrative Procedure Act to provide the public with adequate notice.

Response: The proposal met all APA and CAA notice-and-comment requirements. Nothing in the APA or the CAA requires the EPA to publish proposed rule text in the Federal Register . The APA does not require publication of proposed rule text in the Federal Register . Section 553(b)(3) of the APA provides that a notice of proposed rulemaking shall include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.” Thus, the APA clearly provides flexibility to describe the “subjects and issues involved” as an alternative to inclusion of the “terms or substance” of the proposed rule. See also Rybachek v. U.S. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276, 1287 (9th Cir. 1990) (EPA's failure to propose in advance the actual wording of a regulation does not make the regulation invalid where EPA's discussion of the regulatory provisions “clearly describe[s] `the subjects and issues involved.' ”).

Although in the past the EPA has at times published proposed amendatory regulatory text, the EPA's practice has varied. See, e.g., Hazardous Air Pollutants: Proposed Regulations Governing Constructed, Reconstructed or Modified Major Sources, 59 FR 15504 (April 1, 1994) (“The proposed regulatory text is not included in the Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-91-64 or by request from the EPA contact persons designated earlier in this note. The proposed regulatory language is also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), of EPA's electronic bulletin boards.”); Federal Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations, 59 FR 25004 (May 13, 1994) (“The proposed regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket.”). Even when we do include the proposed text in the Federal Register , we often include a redline version of proposed regulations in the docket for rulemakings to assist the public in understanding the proposed regulatory changes. In our experience, stakeholders find the redline version far more useful than the proposed amendatory language in the format required by the Office of the Federal Register. Although appropriate for the task of revising the CFR, this language can be difficult to assess without the accompanying full regulatory text. Given this and given that we rarely receive comments on the proposed amendatory language or on proposed regulatory language at all, we determined that for rulemakings such as this, it would be more efficient to take the approach here of making both easily accessible but not including the proposed amendatory text in the document.

In light of the comments received on the proposed clarifications regarding reclassification effective date, we are not finalizing any regulatory changes related to this provision. However, we note that the notification of change in information already required under 40 CFR 63.9(j) for sources that reclassify is not an optional notification and must be submitted within 15 days after reclassification. We are finalizing the clarifications to the required components of a notification of reclassification as proposed. The regulatory language related to this issue does not add any new requirements, rather, the EPA is clarifying what these reports must already contain. We are also finalizing the regulatory language related to submission of CBI as proposed. The EPA did not receive public comments on these proposed changes and the final regulatory language which allows for and provides the procedures for submitting CBI electronically.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket.

The EPA has not prepared a quantitative analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action because it is highly uncertain which facilities may reclassify in the future and as result of the final rule continue to be subject to CAA 112(c)(6) NESHAP requirements, and no emissions changes are projected to result from the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirements. 15 Instead, these requirements maintain the status quo for sources subject to the NESHAP used to meet the EPA's obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6), even if those sources reclassify. The costs incurred for a given facility due to compliance with any individual NESHAP are better attributed to those individual NESHAP rules—rather than the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. Any future potential costs for facilities that may choose to voluntarily reclassify will experience cost savings that will outweigh any additional cost of achieving area source status. This final rule does not require any action by facilities that reclassified prior to the effective date of this final rule. Whether any cost or cost savings is incurred by any source choosing to reclassify is highly case specific and we are not providing quantitative estimates of costs in this final rule, however, we have included technical memoranda ( e.g., MM2A Cost Memorandum) for the 2020 final MM2A rule and the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) from that rulemaking in the docket for this action to provide illustrative examples of the types of costs and costs savings that may occur due to reclassifications. While the EPA does not expect this action to directly impact the level of control of any particular NESHAP standards, this final rule will ensure that HAP emissions reductions of the specific pollutants addressed in CAA section 112(c)(6) are achieved, and the corresponding public health and environmental benefits from decreased HAP emissions, are maintained at sources that reclassify from major sources of HAP to area sources of HAP.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The final amendments to the General Provisions relate to voluntary actions taken by a source after consideration of the net impacts of this action. Therefore, this action would not impose any new information collection burden. The General Provisions do not themselves require any reporting and recordkeeping activities, and no information collection request (ICR) was submitted in connection with their original promulgation or their subsequent amendment. Any recordkeeping and reporting requirements are imposed only through the incorporation of specific elements of the General Provisions in the individual NESHAP, which are promulgated for particular source categories that have their own ICRs. The PRA costs for sources that reclassify will be properly accounted for in the ICRs for the NESHAP they were subject to. The PRA costs for sources who must remain subject to a particular NESHAP or NESHAP are properly accounted for in the ICRs for the NESHAP they remain subject to.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number  16 of small entities because the rule has no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule. Small entities that are subject to major source NESHAP requirements would not be required to take any action under this final rule; any action a source takes to reclassify as an area source for those permitted to do so would be voluntary. We expect that sources that reclassify will do so in order to experience expected cost savings that will outweigh any additional expected cost of achieving area source status. This final rule only affects potential voluntary future decisions on the part of sources. We cannot project how many sources will reclassify in the future, or whether those facilities will be owned by small entities. This final rule will not prevent any sources from reclassifying who would otherwise be eligible to do so. This action solely requires that sources subject to certain NESHAP must remain subject to those NESHAP, even if they reclassify. This final rule imposes no additional costs or requirements for sources that have already reclassified. The final MM2A rule already required electronic notification to the EPA and we are not requiring those sources who have already submitted notifications to resubmit their notifications.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule does not require any action on the part of any sources or by tribal governments. This action solely requires that sources subject to certain NESHAP must remain subject to those NESHAP, even if they reclassify. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of this action. A summary of that consultation is provided in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0330).

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to regulatory actions considered significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of Executive Order 13045. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not directly regulate any emission source and will not have any direct impact on children's health. The emissions reductions achieved by individual NESHAP are properly accounted for in those individual NESHAP rather than the General Provisions. This action will not change the level of emissions reductions achieved by those NESHAP. While we do not expect this action to have any direct impact on children's health, continued compliance with NESHAP used for CAA section 112(c)(6) by a source that reclassifies will provide continued protection achieved by those NESHAP(s) that the source remains subject to.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The final amendments to the General Provisions in this action are procedural changes and do not impact the technology performance nor level of control of the NESHAP governed by the General Provisions.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. We are unable to quantitatively estimate the potential environmental justice (EJ) impact of this rule because the final amendments to the General Provisions are procedural changes and do not impact the technology performance nor level of control of the NESHAP governed by the General Provisions.

While the EPA does not expect this action to directly impact the level of control of any particular NESHAP standards, this final rule will assure that emissions reductions of persistent, bioaccumulative HAP, and the corresponding public health and environmental benefits from decreased HAP emissions are maintained for all populations, including communities with EJ concerns.

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (“Lists”), which are set forth in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at §§ 17.11 and 17.12, respectively, contain certain information on the endangered species and threatened species federally listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The information in the Lists includes each listed species' common name and scientific name, the geographic area where the species is listed for purposes of the ESA, its listing status ( e.g., endangered), and nonregulatory information providing citations to applicable Federal Register publications and regulations.

The regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(c) and 17.12(b) direct us to use the most recently accepted scientific name of any wildlife or plant species, respectively, that we have determined to be an endangered or threatened species.

This final rule revises the Lists at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and 17.12(h) to correct the editorial errors identified below under Summary Table of Editorial Corrections. These corrections are purely administrative and are based on previously published rulemaking documents.

We are publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we previously provided a public comment period on the proposed rules for these taxa and because this is a noncontroversial action that is in the best interest of the public and that should be undertaken in as timely a manner as possible. None of these changes are regulatory in nature; they are for accuracy and clarity. These revisions do not alter species' protections or status in any way. Any actions altering a species' protection or status would require a separate rulemaking action following the procedures of 50 CFR part 424.

The table below identifies the editorial corrections we are making in this rule. The table provides the current listing information for each species to be corrected, the type of error and a description of the correction we are making, and the correction itself.

Where the table refers to the “2016 Reformatting” that means an August 4, 2016, final rule (81 FR 51550) that we published to update the format of the Lists. The purpose of the 2016 Reformatting was to make the Lists easier to understand by changing the format to reflect current practices and standards, to correct identified errors in entries such as footnotes and spelling, and to update common names, among other changes. Following the 2016 Reformatting's publication, however, we identified editorial errors in the updated Lists.

Where the table refers to the “1983 Republication” that means a July 27, 1983, final rule (48 FR 34182) in which we republished the Lists. At that time we republished the Lists annually to incorporate all changes ( i.e., additions, reclassifications, and deletions) published as final rules in the Federal Register to date. We have identified an error in the 1983 Republication of the List.

Where the table refers to the “2003 Rule” that means an August 6, 2003, final rule (68 FR 46684) in which we designated critical habitat for 15 previously listed species in California and southern Oregon. The 2003 Rule revised the Lists to add references for each species' newly designated critical habitat. However, this rule also introduced several errors to the Lists.

In the table below, “E” means “endangered,” and “T” means “threatened.” These refer to the listing status of a species. The ESA defines an “endangered species” at 16 U.S.C. 1532(6), and a “threatened species” at 16 U.S.C. 1532(20).

All corrections described in the table are editorial in nature; that is, the correct species' scientific name or listing status were already set forth in a previous rulemaking published in the Federal Register (FR), which we cite in the table. We also correct erroneous FR citations in the Lists, as described in the table below.

The corrections described in the table above are not regulatory in nature; they are administrative and for the purposes of accuracy and clarity. The corrections do not alter a species' protections or status; an action changing a species' protection or status would require a separate rulemaking following the procedures set forth at 50 CFR part 424.

Because we provided a public comment period on the proposed rules for these taxa, and because this action to correct the Lists is administrative in nature, we find good cause that the notice and public comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary for this action. We also find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective immediately. This rule is an administrative action to provide accurate information for the subject species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and 17.12(h), respectively; it does not alter a species' protections or status. The public would not be served by delaying the effective date of this rulemaking action.

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), need not be prepared in connection with regulations issued pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We have determined that this rule will not affect Tribes or Tribal lands.

For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: