The NRC is issuing an administrative revision to an existing guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. Regulatory guides are developed to describe and make available to the public information and methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

The NRC typically seeks public comment on a draft version of an RG by announcing its availability for comment in the Federal Register . However, as explained in NRC's Management Directive (MD) 6.6 “Regulatory Guides,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML22010A233) the NRC may directly issue a final RG without a draft version or public comment period if the changes to the RG are non-substantive.

Thus, the NRC is issuing Revision 1 of RG 3.7 directly as a final RG because there are no changes in the staff positions between Revision 0 and Revision 1. Revision 1 of RG 3.7 incorporates minor corrections, and other editorial changes that are administrative in nature. The changes are intended to improve clarity and do not alter the NRC staff's regulatory guidance for the “Monitoring of Combustible Gases and Vapors in Plutonium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants,” licensees.

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 chapter I of title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

This RG is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

The NRC staff may use this RG as a reference in its regulatory processes, such as licensing, inspection, or enforcement. However, the NRC staff does not intend to use the guidance in this RG to support NRC staff actions in a manner that would constitute backfitting as that term is defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC MD 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests” (ADAMS Accession No. ML18093B087), nor does the NRC staff intend to use the guidance to affect the issue finality of an approval under 10 CFR part 52. The staff also does not intend to use the guidance to support NRC staff actions in a manner that constitutes forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4. If a licensee believes that the NRC is using this RG in a manner inconsistent with the discussion in the Implementation section of RG 3.7, then the licensee may file a backfitting or forward fitting appeal with the NRC in accordance with the process in MD 8.4.

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 to address new issues. 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.

Table of Contents I. Authority II. Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Direct Final Rule A. Background III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule A. General Comments B. Typographical Error Correction IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition V. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 VI. Conclusion I. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”), that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. ( Id. )

After review of the comments received in response to the direct final rule, DOE has determined that it did not receive any adverse comments providing a basis for withdrawal described above for the direct final rule that is the subject of this document. As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.

In a direct final rule published on October 28, 2016, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”) manufactured on and after October 28, 2019. 81 FR 75194. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(aa)(1) and (2). These standards are consistent with a negotiated term sheet submitted to DOE by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups. 2

On March 31, 2023, DOE published a NOPR proposing to establish amended standards for MREFs. 88 FR 19382.

On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (“Joint Agreement”) recommending standards for MREFs that was submitted jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. 3 In addition to the recommended standards for MREFs, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products. 4 The amended standard levels recommended in the Joint Agreement for MREFs, which are expressed in terms of kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/yr”), are presented in table II.1. Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket for this rulemaking. 5

After carefully considering the recommended energy conservation standards for MREFs in the Joint Agreement, DOE determined that these recommendations were in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule and published a direct final rule on May 7, 2024 (“May 2024 Direct Final Rule”). 89 FR 38762. DOE evaluated whether the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found that the recommended standard levels would result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Id. at 89 FR 38763-38770. Accordingly, DOE adopted the recommended efficiency levels for MREFs as the amended standard levels in the May 2024 Direct Final Rule. Id. at 89 FR 38828.

The standards adopted in the May 2024 Direct Final Rule apply to product classes listed in table II.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2029. The May 2024 Direct Final Rule provides a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA. Id. at 89 FR 38803-38831.

Table of Contents I. Authority II. Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Direct Final Rule A. Background III. Comments on the Direct Final Rule A. General Comments B. Certification IV. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition V. Conclusion I. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule establishing an energy conservation standard for covered equipment on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered equipment, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”), that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. ( Id. )

After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did not receive any adverse comments providing a basis for withdrawal described above for the direct final rule that is the subject of this document. As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and allowed it to become effective. Although not required under EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.

Small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment are covered equipment under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) Such equipment includes as equipment categories air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h (“ACUACs”) and air-cooled commercial unitary heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h (“ACUHPs”) (excluding double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps), which are the subject of this rulemaking. 2

In a direct final rule published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016 (“January 2016 Direct Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs manufactured on and after January 1, 2023. 3 81 FR 2420. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) section 431.97(b).

DOE's current energy conservation standards are expressed in terms of integrated energy efficiency ratio (“IEER”) for the cooling efficiency of ACUACs and ACUHPs, and in terms of coefficient of performance (“COP”) for the heating efficiency of ACUHPs. ( See 10 CFR 431.97(b)) To demonstrate compliance with the current energy conservation standards, manufacturers must use the test procedure provided at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A (“appendix A”), Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h).

Since publication of the January 2016 Direct Final Rule, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) published an updated version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (“ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016”), which updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs to align with the first tier of minimum efficiencies adopted by DOE in the January 2016 Direct Final Rule (which had a compliance date of January 1, 2018). ASHRAE subsequently published another updated version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (“ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019”), which updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs to align with both tiers adopted by DOE in the January 2016 Direct Final Rule ( i.e., specifying two tiers of minimum levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs, with a January 1, 2023, compliance date for the second tier). 4

Prior to December 23, 2022, section 205(d)(1) of the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act) provided that, except with the prior written consent of the Board (the NCUA refers to applications for such consent as “consent applications”), a person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with the prosecution for such offense (collectively, covered offenses), may not:

• Become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party (IAP) with respect to any insured credit union; or

• Otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any insured credit union. 1

Table of Contents I. General Background and Legal Authority A. General Background B. Legal Authority II. Simplification of Share Insurance Trust Rules A. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking B. Policy Objectives C. Background and Need for Rulemaking 1. Evolution of Insurance Coverage of Funds Held in Trust Accounts 2. Current Rules for Coverage of Funds Held in Trust Accounts 3. Need for Further Rulemaking D. Final Rule E. Examples Demonstrating Coverage Under Current and Final Rules F. Discussion of Comments III. Amendments to Mortgage Servicing Account Rule A. Policy Objectives B. Background and Need for Rulemaking C. Final Rule D. Discussion of Comments IV. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Policy Objectives B. Background and Need for Rulemaking C. Final Rule D. Discussion of Comments V. Regulatory Procedures A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Executive Order 13132 on Federalism D. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Congressional Review Act) I. General Background and Legal Authority A. General Background

The NCUA is an independent Federal agency that insures funds maintained in accounts of members or those otherwise eligible to maintain insured accounts (member accounts) at FICUs, protects the members who own FICUs, and charters and regulates Federal credit unions (FCUs). The NCUA protects the safety and soundness of the credit union system by identifying, monitoring, and reducing risks to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the Share Insurance Fund provides Federal share insurance to account holders in all FCUs and the majority of state-chartered credit unions.

The Board has issued this final rule pursuant to its authority under the FCU Act. Under the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act), in the event of a FICU's failure the NCUA is responsible for paying share insurance to any member, or to any person with funds lawfully held in a member account, 1 up to the standard maximum share insurance amount (SMSIA), which is currently set at $250,000. 2 The FCU Act provides that the NCUA Board must determine the amount payable consistently with actions taken by the FDIC under its deposit insurance rules. 3 The FCU Act also grants the NCUA express authority to issue regulations on the determination of the net amount of share insurance paid. 4 The FCU Act further provides that “in determining the amount payable to any member, there shall be added together all accounts in the credit union maintained by that member for that member's own benefit, either in the member's own name or in the names of others.”  5 However, the FCU Act also specifically authorizes the Board to “define, with such classifications and exceptions as it may prescribe, the extent of the share insurance coverage provided for member accounts, including member accounts in the name of a minor, in trust, or in joint tenancy.”  6

The NCUA has implemented these requirements by issuing regulations recognizing particular categories of accounts, such as single ownership accounts, joint ownership accounts, revocable trust accounts, and irrevocable trust accounts. 7 If an account meets the requirements for a particular category, the account is insured, up to the $250,000 limit, separately from shares held by the member in a different account category at the same FICU. For example, provided all requirements are met, shares in the single ownership category will be separately insured from shares in the joint ownership category held by the same member at the same FICU.

The NCUA's share insurance categories have been defined through both statute and regulation. Certain categories, such as the accounts held by government depositors  8 and certain retirement accounts, including individual retirement accounts, have been expressly defined by Congress. 9 Other categories, such as joint accounts  10 and corporate accounts, 11 have been based on statutory interpretation; these accounts have been recognized through regulations issued in 12 CFR part 745 pursuant to the NCUA's rulemaking authority. In addition to defining the insurance categories, the share insurance regulations in part 745 provide the criteria used to determine insurance coverage for shares in each category.

Notably, the FCU Act also defines the term “member account.” The NCUA insures member accounts at all FICUs. 12 Importantly, this term is not limited to those persons enumerated in the credit union's field of membership who have become members. It also includes as member accounts certain nonmembers, such as other nonmember credit unions; nonmember public units and political subdivisions; and, in the case of credit unions serving predominantly low-income members, deposits of nonmembers generally. In other words, the NCUA provides share insurance coverage to members and those otherwise eligible to maintain insured accounts at FICUs.

Finally, in addition to specific authority to draft share insurance regulations under § 1787 of the FCU Act, the NCUA also has general rulemaking authority. Under the FCU Act, the NCUA is the chartering and supervisory authority for FCUs and the Federal supervisory authority for FICUs. 13 The FCU Act grants the NCUA a broad mandate to issue regulations governing both FCUs and FICUs. Section 120 of the FCU Act is a general grant of regulatory authority, and it authorizes the Board to prescribe rules and regulations for the administration of the FCU Act. 14 Section 207 of the FCU Act is a specific grant of authority over share insurance coverage, conservatorships, and liquidations. 15 Section 209 of the FCU Act is a plenary grant of regulatory authority to the NCUA to issue rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to carry out its role as share insurer for all FICUs. 16 Accordingly, the FCU Act grants the Board broad rulemaking authority to ensure the credit union industry and the Share Insurance Fund remain safe and sound.

At its October 19, 2023, meeting, the Board issued a proposed rule to simplify the regulations governing share insurance coverage (proposed rule). 17 The proposed rule primarily sought to simply share insurance coverage rules and increase consistency with changes adopted by the FDIC in January 2022. The Board's overall objective was to facilitate the prompt payment of share insurance in accordance with the FCU Act. As discussed in more detail later in this preamble, the Board is finalizing the proposed changes to the share insurance regulations as proposed.

The Board is amending its regulations governing share insurance coverage for funds held in member accounts at FICUs in connection with trusts. 18 Like the proposed rule, the amendments of the final rule are primarily intended to do the following: (1) provide a rule for trust account coverage that is easier to understand and apply; (2) provide parity with changes the FDIC adopted in January 2022;  19 and (3) facilitate the prompt payment of share insurance in accordance with the FCU Act. Accomplishing these objectives will further the NCUA's mission in other respects, as discussed in greater detail later in this preamble.

The share insurance trust rules have evolved over time, and they can be difficult to apply in some circumstances. The amendments are intended to clarify the insurance rules and trust-account limits for FICUs, their employees, their accountholders, and other interested parties. The amendments reduce the number of rules governing coverage for trust accounts, and they establish a straightforward calculation to determine coverage. The amendments are also intended to alleviate some of the confusion that FICUs, their employees, and their accountholders may experience with respect to insurance coverage and limits.

Under the regulations currently in effect (current rules), there are distinct and separate sets of rules applicable to shares of revocable trusts as opposed to irrevocable trusts. Each set of rules has its own criteria for coverage and methods by which coverage is calculated. Despite the NCUA's efforts to simplify the revocable trust rules in 2008, the consistently high volume of complex inquiries about trust accounts over an extended period suggests continued confusion about insurance limits. 20 NCUA share insurance specialists have answered over 17,000 calls with questions since the fourth quarter of 2019. 21 The NCUA estimates that over 50 percent of these inquiries, which do not include those received through email, submitted through mycreditunion.gov , or directed to NCUA staff responsible for credit union liquidations, pertain to share insurance coverage for trust accounts (revocable or irrevocable). Additionally, comments received in response to the proposal also support the notion that there continues to be confusion regarding share insurance coverage of trust accounts.

To better clarify insurance limits, the amendments will further simplify insurance coverage of trust accounts (revocable and irrevocable) by harmonizing the coverage criteria for revocable and irrevocable trust accounts and by establishing a simplified formula for calculating coverage that would apply to these funds deposited at FICUs. The final rule uses the calculation the NCUA first adopted in 2008 for revocable trust accounts with five or fewer beneficiaries. This formula is straightforward and familiar to FICUs and their members. 22 The amendments will also eliminate formulas in the current rules for revocable trust accounts with more than five beneficiaries and irrevocable trust accounts.

Adoption of the final rule will also align with changes the FDIC adopted in January 2022, which took effect on April 1, 2024. 23 As the Board stressed in the proposed rule, as well as in the 2021 final rule addressing the share insurance coverage of joint ownership accounts, the Board believes it is important to maintain parity, to the extent possible, between the nation's two Federal deposit and share insurance programs, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. 24 The Board believes it is important that members of the public who use trust accounts receive the same protection whether the accounts are maintained at FICUs or other federally insured institutions. Consistency between the FDIC's Federal deposit insurance rules and the NCUA's share insurance rules promotes public confidence in the safety of funds at depository institutions regardless of whether the institution is an insured bank or insured credit union.

The FCU Act requires the NCUA to pay accountholders “as soon as possible” after a FICU liquidation. 25 However, the insurance determination and subsequent payment for many trust accounts can be delayed when NCUA staff must review complex trust agreements and apply various rules for determining share insurance coverage. The final rule's amendments are intended to facilitate more timely share insurance determinations for trust accounts by reducing the time needed to review trust agreements and determine coverage. These amendments should promote the NCUA's ability to pay insurance proceeds to accountholders more quickly following the liquidation of a FICU, enabling accountholders to meet their financial needs and obligations.

The final rule's amendments will also facilitate the liquidation of failed FICUs. The NCUA is routinely required to make share insurance determinations in connection with FICU liquidations. In many of these instances, however, share insurance coverage for certain trust accounts is based upon information that is not maintained in the FICU's account records. As a result, NCUA staff work with accountholders to obtain trust documentation following a FICU's liquidation to complete share insurance determinations. The difficulties associated with completing such a determination are exacerbated by the substantial growth in the use of formal trusts in recent decades. These amendments could reduce the time spent reviewing such information, thereby reducing potential delays in the completion of share insurance determinations and payments.

The NCUA first adopted regulations governing share insurance coverage in 1971. 26 Over the years, share insurance coverage has evolved to reflect both the NCUA's experience and changes in the credit union industry as well as statutory amendments. 27

While the regulations addressing irrevocable trusts have undergone minimal change, the regulations addressing revocable trusts have seen numerous changes, largely aimed at providing increased flexibility and simplifying coverage. Notably, in 2004 the NCUA amended the revocable trust rules, pointing to continued confusion about the coverage for revocable trust deposits and the need for parity with then recent FDIC amendments. 28 Specifically, the NCUA eliminated the defeating contingency provisions of the rules, with the result that coverage would be based on the interests of qualifying beneficiaries, irrespective of any defeating contingencies in the trust agreement. 29 This more closely aligned coverage for formal revocable trust accounts with payable-on-death accounts. Importantly, and of relevance to this final rule, defeating contingency provisions were not eliminated for irrevocable trusts, and these provisions remain relevant for calculating share insurance coverage under the current irrevocable trust provisions. 30 At the same time, the NCUA eliminated the requirement to name the beneficiaries of a formal revocable trust in the FICU's account records. 31 The NCUA recognized a grantor may elect to change the beneficiaries or the beneficiaries' interests at any time before the grantor's death, and requiring a FICU to maintain a current record of this information would be impractical and unnecessarily burdensome.

More recently, the NCUA's experience and adoption of similar revisions by the FDIC suggested further changes to the trust rules were necessary. In 2008, the NCUA simplified the rules in several respects. 32 First, it eliminated the kinship requirement for revocable trust beneficiaries, instead allowing any natural person, charitable organization, or nonprofit to qualify for per-beneficiary coverage. Second, a simplified calculation was established if a revocable trust named five or fewer beneficiaries; in which case, coverage would be determined without regard to the allocation of interests among the beneficiaries. This simplification eliminated the need to discern and consider beneficial interests in many cases.

A different insurance calculation applied to revocable trusts with more than five beneficiaries. At that time, the SMSIA was $100,000; thus, if more than five beneficiaries were named in a revocable trust, coverage would be the greater of: (1) $500,000; or (2) the aggregate amount of all beneficiaries' interests in the trust(s), limited to $100,000 per beneficiary. When the SMSIA was increased to $250,000, a similar adjustment was made from $100,000 to $250,000 for the calculation of per-beneficiary coverage.

The NCUA's current rules recognize two different insurance categories for funds held in connection with trusts at FICUs: (1) revocable trusts and (2) irrevocable trusts. The current rules for determining insurance coverage for shares in each of these categories are described below. Additionally, share insurance coverage is always limited to FICU members and those otherwise eligible to maintain insured accounts at the FICU. The NCUA's longstanding position has been that, for revocable trust accounts, all grantors (sometimes described as settlors) of the trust must be members of the FICU or otherwise eligible to maintain an insured account. 33 For irrevocable trust accounts, the NCUA has maintained the position that either all grantors (or settlors) or all beneficiaries of the trust must be members of the FICU or otherwise eligible to maintain an insured account. 34

As described in greater detail in section II.E., in the 2023 proposal, the NCUA requested commenters' feedback as to whether these positions should be revisited. This final rule will not alter these longstanding positions. However, the NCUA will be continuing to evaluate commenters' feedback and whether further changes are possible and necessary.

The revocable trust category applies to funds for which the member has evidenced an intention that the funds shall belong to one or more beneficiaries upon the member's death. This category includes funds held in connection with formal revocable trusts—that is, revocable trusts established through a written trust agreement. It also includes funds that are not subject to a formal trust agreement, where the FICU makes payment to the beneficiaries identified in the FICU's records upon the member's death, based on account titling and applicable state law. The NCUA refers to these types of accounts, including Totten trust accounts, payable-on-death accounts, and similar accounts, as “informal revocable trusts.” Funds associated with formal and informal revocable trusts are aggregated for the purposes of the share insurance rules; thus, funds that will pass from the same grantor to beneficiaries are aggregated and insured up to the SMSIA, currently $250,000, per beneficiary, regardless of whether the transfer would be accomplished through a written revocable trust or an informal revocable trust. 35

Under the current revocable trust rules, beneficiaries with insurable interests are limited to natural persons, charitable organizations, and non-profit entities recognized as such under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 36 If a named beneficiary does not satisfy this requirement, funds held in trust for that beneficiary are treated as single ownership funds of the grantor and aggregated with any other single ownership accounts the grantor maintains at the same FICU. 37

Certain requirements also must be satisfied for an account to be insured in the revocable trust category. The required intention that the funds shall belong to the beneficiaries upon the grantor's death must either be manifested in the “title” of the account or elsewhere in the account records of the credit union (using commonly accepted terms such as “in trust for,” “as trustee for,” “payable-on-death to,” or any acronym for these terms). 38 For the purposes of this requirement, a FICU's electronic account records are included. For example, a FICU's electronic account records could identify the account as a revocable trust account through coding or a similar mechanism. In addition, the beneficiaries of informal trusts (that is, payable-on-death accounts) must be named in the FICU's account records. 39 The requirement to name beneficiaries in the FICU's account records does not apply to formal revocable trusts; the NCUA generally obtains information on beneficiaries of such trusts from accountholders following a FICU's liquidation. If a member's funds at a liquidated FICU held in trust accounts exceed the SMSIA, a hold will be placed on the portion of such funds in excess of the SMSIA until the NCUA can fully review the member's trust agreement and related documents to verify the beneficiary rules are satisfied. Therefore, this process can result in delays to some insured accountholders' insurance determinations and full insurance payments.

The calculation of share insurance coverage for revocable trust accounts depends upon the number of unique beneficiaries named by a member accountholder. If five or fewer beneficiaries have been named, the member accountholder is insured in an amount up to the total number of named beneficiaries multiplied by the SMSIA, and the specific allocation of interests among the beneficiaries is not considered. 40 If more than five beneficiaries have been named, the member accountholder is insured up to the greater of: (1) five times the SMSIA; or (2) the total of the interests of each beneficiary, with each such interest limited to the SMSIA. 41 For the purposes of this calculation, a life estate interest is valued at the SMSIA. 42

Where a revocable trust account is jointly owned, the interests of each account owner are separately insured up to the SMSIA per beneficiary. 43 However, if the co-owners are the only beneficiaries of the trust, the account is instead insured under the NCUA's joint account rule. 44

The current revocable trust rule also contains a provision that was intended to reduce confusion and the potential for a decrease in share insurance coverage in the case of the death of a grantor. Specifically, if a revocable trust becomes irrevocable due to the death of the grantor, the trust account may continue to be insured under the revocable trust rules. 45 Absent this provision, the irrevocable trust rules would apply following the grantor's death, as the revocable trust becomes irrevocable at that time, which could result in a reduction in coverage. 46

Accounts maintaining funds held by an irrevocable trust that has been established either by written agreement or by statute are insured in the irrevocable trust share insurance category. Calculating coverage in this category requires a determination of whether beneficiaries' interests in the trust are contingent or non-contingent. 47 Non-contingent interests are interests that may be determined without evaluation of any contingencies, except for those covered by the present worth and life expectancy tables and the rules for their use set forth in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Federal Estate Tax Regulations. 48 Funds held for non-contingent trust interests are insured up to the SMSIA for each such beneficiary. 49 Funds held for contingent trust interests are aggregated and insured up to the SMSIA in total. 50

The irrevocable trust rules do not apply to funds held for a grantor's retained interest in an irrevocable trust. 51 Such funds are aggregated with the grantor's other single ownership funds for the purposes of applying the share insurance limit.

As noted, the rules governing share insurance coverage for trust accounts have been simplified and modified on several occasions. However, these rules are still frequently misunderstood and can present some implementation challenges. The trust rules can require overly detailed, time-consuming, and resource-intensive reviews of trust documentation to obtain the information necessary to calculate share insurance coverage. This information is often not found in a FICU's records and must be obtained from members after a FICU's liquidation.

Revision of the share insurance coverage rules for trust accounts will reduce the amount of information that must be provided for trust accounts, as well as the complexity of the NCUA's review. This revision should enable the NCUA to complete share insurance determinations more rapidly if a FICU with a large number of trust accounts is liquidated. Delays in the payment of share insurance can be consequential for accountholders, and the final rule will help to mitigate those delays.

Several factors contribute to the challenges of making insurance determinations for trust accounts under the current rules. First, there are two different sets of rules governing share insurance coverage for trust accounts. Understanding the coverage for a particular account requires a threshold inquiry to determine which set of rules to apply—the revocable trust rules or the irrevocable trust rules. This requires review of the trust agreement to determine the type of trust (revocable or irrevocable), and the inquiry may be complicated by innovations in state trust law that are intended to increase the flexibility and utility of trusts. In some cases, this threshold inquiry is also complicated by the provision of the revocable trust rules that allows for continued coverage under the revocable trust rules where a trust becomes irrevocable upon the grantor's death. The result of an irrevocable trust deposit being insured under the revocable trust rules has proven confusing for both accountholders and FICUs.

Second, even after determining which set of rules applies to a particular account, it may be challenging to apply the current rules. For example, the revocable trust rules include unique titling requirements and beneficiary requirements. These rules also provide for two separate calculations to determine insurance coverage, depending in part upon whether there are five or fewer trust beneficiaries or at least six beneficiaries. In addition, for revocable trusts that provide benefits to multiple generations of potential beneficiaries, the NCUA needs to evaluate the trust agreement to determine whether a beneficiary is a primary beneficiary (immediately entitled to funds when a grantor dies), contingent beneficiary, or remainder beneficiary. Only eligible primary beneficiaries and remainder beneficiaries are considered when calculating NCUA share insurance coverage. The irrevocable trust rules may require detailed review of trust agreements to determine whether beneficiaries' interests are contingent and may also require actuarial or present value calculations. These types of requirements complicate the determination of insurance coverage for trust deposits, have proven confusing for accountholders, and extend the time needed to complete a share insurance determination and insurance payment.

Third, the complexity and variety of account holders' trust arrangements adds to the difficulty of determining share insurance coverage under the current rules. For example, trust interests are sometimes defined through numerous conditions and formulas, and a careful analysis of these provisions may be necessary to calculate share insurance coverage under the current rules. Arrangements involving multiple trusts where the same beneficiaries are named by the same grantor(s) in different trusts add to the difficulty of applying the trust rules. The NCUA believes simplification of the share insurance rules presents an opportunity to more closely align the coverage provided for different types of trust funds. For example, the current revocable trust rules generally provide for a greater amount of coverage than the irrevocable trust rules. This outcome occurs because contingent interests for irrevocable trusts are aggregated and insured up to the SMSIA rather than up to the SMSIA per beneficiary, while contingencies are not considered and therefore do not limit coverage in the same manner for revocable trusts.

Finally, as previously noted, adoption of this final rule will align with changes the FDIC adopted in January 2022, which took effect on April 1, 2024. The Board believes it is important to maintain parity between the nation's two Federal deposit and share insurance programs. 52 It is imperative that members of the public who use trust accounts for the transfer of ownership of assets better understand the rules governing such accounts and receive the same protection, whether the accounts are maintained at FICUs or other federally insured institutions.

The final rule adopts the proposed changes to the trust account rules as proposed. Specifically, the NCUA is amending the rules governing share insurance coverage for funds held in trust accounts at FICUs. Generally, the amendments will do the following: (1) merge the revocable and irrevocable trust categories into one category; (2) apply a simpler, common calculation method to determine insurance coverage for funds held by revocable and irrevocable trusts; and (3) eliminate certain requirements found in the current rules for revocable and irrevocable trusts.

As discussed above, the NCUA historically has insured revocable trust funds and irrevocable trust funds held at FICUs under two separate insurance categories. The NCUA's experience has been this bifurcation often confuses FICUs' staff and their members, as it requires a threshold inquiry to determine which set of rules to apply to a trust account. Moreover, all trust funds deposited at a FICU must be categorized before the aggregation of trust funds deposited within each category can be completed. The NCUA believes funds held in connection with revocable and irrevocable trusts are sufficiently similar, for the purposes of share insurance coverage, to warrant the merger of these two categories into one category. Under the NCUA's current rules, share insurance coverage is provided because the trustee maintains the funds for the benefit of the beneficiaries. This fact is true regardless of whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable. Merging the revocable and irrevocable trust categories will better conform share insurance coverage to the substance—rather than the legal form—of the trust arrangement. This underlying principle of the share insurance rules is particularly important in the context of trusts, as state law often provides flexibility to structure arrangements in different ways to accomplish a given purpose. 53

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-24-16, Amendment 39-21005 (84 FR 71772, December 30, 2019) (AD 2019-24-16). AD 2019-24-16 applied to certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, and -100 ECJ airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. AD 2019-24-16 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2019-24-16 to address fatigue cracking of structural components and to address failure of certain system components, which could result in reduced structural integrity and system reliability of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2024 (89 FR 23529). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-12-02, effective December 15, 2023, issued by ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil (ANAC AD 2023-12-02) (also referred to as the MCAI), for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -100 SR, and -100 ECJ airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. Model ERJ 190-100SR airplanes are not on the U.S. Register; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain all requirements of AD 2019-24-16, and require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in ANAC AD 2023-12-02. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of certain system components. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity and system reliability of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0994.

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.

ANAC AD 2023-12-02 specifies procedures for new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires the following documents, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of February 3, 2020 (84 FR 71772, December 30, 2019).

• Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations (AL), to the EMBRAER 190/195 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 12, dated September 27, 2018.

• Appendix A—Airworthiness Limitations (AL), to the EMBRAER Lineage 1000/1000E Maintenance Planning Guide, MPG-2928, Revision 8, dated October 10, 2018.

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 98 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 2019-24-16 to be $7,650 (90 workhours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 workhours 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:

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 SAS Model A330-243, -302, -343, and -941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024 (89 FR 37142). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0023, dated January 23, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0023) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that a certain aft bulkhead cover panel may have been made with a non-conforming material. This panel is installed in galley G4 and does not meet the heat release requirements. This condition, if not corrected, represents a non-compliance with certification requirements that could result in injury to occupants and reduced evacuation capacity from the airplane in case of an emergency.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the aft bulkhead cover panel and prohibit the installation of affected parts, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0023. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1288.

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

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

EASA AD 2024-0023 specifies replacing the aft bulkhead cover panel installed in galley G4 and prohibits the installation of affected parts. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-11-17, Amendment 39-21579 (86 FR 31087, June 11, 2021) (AD 2021-11-17), and AD 2021-11-22, Amendment 39-21584 (86 FR 31101, June 11, 2021) (AD 2021-11-22). AD 2021-11-17 and AD 2021-11-22 applied to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters. AD 2021-11-17 required a one-time visual inspection of the MRA, and AD 2021-11-22 required revising the life limit of certain parts and removing from service each part that had reached its life limit. The FAA issued AD 2021-11-17 to prevent failure of the MRA and subsequent loss of the control of the helicopter. The FAA issued AD 2021-11-22 to prevent certain parts from remaining in service beyond their fatigue life, resulting in failure of the part and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2024 (89 FR 17348). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2022-0067, dated April 13, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0067) (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that repetitive inspections of MRA are necessary.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0462.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions required by AD 2021-11-17 and AD 2021-11-22, except the NPRM proposed to require changing the one-time MRA inspection to a repetitive inspection and incorporating other new and more restrictive tasks and limitations by revising the ALS of the existing helicopter maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. The NPRM also proposed to expand the applicability by adding Model EC635T2+ helicopters.

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

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2022-0067 requires replacing components before exceeding their life limits and accomplishing maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the applicable ALS as defined in EASA AD 2022-0067. Depending on the results of the maintenance tasks, EASA AD 2022-0067 requires accomplishing corrective action(s) or contacting AHD [Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH AHD] for approved instructions and accomplishing those instructions. EASA AD 2022-0067 also requires revising the Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the specified ALS as applicable to helicopter model and configuration. Revising the AMP constitutes terminating action for the requirements to replace components before exceeding their life limits and accomplish maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals specified in the applicable ALS as required by EASA AD 2022-0067.

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 Chapter 04 ALS for EC135 P1, P2, P3, T1, T2, T3, limited to CDS, CPDS, P2+, T2+ helicopters, Revision 2, dated April 6, 2021, and Airbus Chapter 04 ALS for EC135 P3H and T3H helicopters, Revision 2, dated April 6, 2021. This material specifies airworthiness limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals for various parts. Revision 2 of this material specifies various updates for certain components.

EASA AD 2022-0067 applies to Model EC635 P2+, EC635 P3, EC635 T1, and EC635 T3 helicopters, whereas this AD does not because these model helicopters are not FAA type-certificated.

EASA AD 2022-0067 requires replacing certain components before exceeding applicable life limits, accomplishing certain maintenance tasks within thresholds and intervals as specified in the ALS, as defined within, and depending on the results, accomplishing corrective action within the compliance time specified in that ALS. EASA AD 2022-0067 also requires revising the approved AMP to incorporate the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in that ALS within 12 months after its effective date. Whereas, this AD requires revising existing documents and programs within 30 days to incorporate the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in that ALS, and clarifies that if the initial instance of an incorporated limitation or threshold therein is reached before 30 days after the effective date of this AD, you still have up to 30 days after the effective date of this AD to accomplish the corresponding task.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 272 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.

Revising the ALS of the existing helicopter maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness for your helicopter and the existing approved maintenance or inspection program for your helicopter, as applicable, takes approximately 2 work-hours, for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $46,240 for the U.S. fleet.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2024 (89 FR 48348). The NPRM was prompted by AD G-2023-0006, dated November 24, 2023 (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom (UK). The MCAI states that an operator reported that during routine maintenance, cracking was found on the radius of the rib 0 forward longeron at frame 26. The cracking initiated close to a local blend in the radius. Failure of the rib 0 forward longeron could lead to structural failure of adjacent structure, leading to failure of the fuselage skin, and could result in rapid decompression and possible loss of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection for defects of the radius, and repair if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1478.

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 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-249, dated August 25, 2023. This material specifies procedures for performing a detailed inspection for any defects (rough edges, nicks, or visible cracking) and for any evidence of blending or undercutting of the radius and flanges of the rib 0 forward longeron at frame 26, performing a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the radius of the rib 0 forward longeron at frame 26, and obtaining and following repair instructions. 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 considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2024-2316; Project Identifier MCAI-2024-00381-G” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0126, dated July 2, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0126) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on the following DG Aviation GmbH sailplanes (gliders):

• Model DG-100G, DG-100G ELAN, DG-200, DG-200/17, DG-200/17C, DG-300, DG-300 ELAN, DG-300 Club ELAN, DG-300 ELAN ACRO, DG-300 Club ELAN ACRO, DG-400, DG-600, DG-600/18, DG-600M, and DG-600/18 M sailplanes and powered sailplanes, all serial numbers except those equipped with l'Hotellier connections of the elevator control.

• Model DG-500/22 ELAN, DG-500 ELAN Trainer, DG-500/20 ELAN, DG-500 ELAN ORION, DG-500 M, and DG-500 MB sailplanes and powered sailplanes, all serial numbers.

• Model DG-800 A, DG-800 B, DG-808C, DG-800 LA, DG-800 S, and DG-808 S sailplanes and powered sailplanes all serial numbers.

• Model DG-1000S, DG-1000T, DG-1000M, and DG-1000E sailplanes and powered sailplanes, all serial numbers.

The MCAI states an occurrence was reported of a broken rod end at the upper end of the elevator pushrod in the fin of a Model DG-300 sailplane. It was determined that the elevator play adjustment screw was screwed in too far, which caused jamming of the roller inside the funnel. Even with higher force, the roller could not be moved up to the front of the funnel; therefore, each time, when rigging and during normal operation, a bending force affected the rod end, causing fatigue failure. Further investigation revealed that a significant number of certain sailplane models were operated with the elevator play adjustment screw screwed in too far. It was also determined that because of its location, the elevator pushrod end damage could not be detected using visual or non-destructive testing to identify fatigue cracks. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of pitch control of the (powered) sailplane. Due to the similarity of design, all DG sailplanes in the applicability of the MCAI (if equipped with automatic hook-up) could be affected by the unsafe condition.

The MCAI requires a one-time operational check of the free play adjustment of the automatic elevator hook-up and, depending on the findings, replacement of the affected parts, and for a certain group of (powered) sailplanes, mandatory replacement of the rod end. The MCAI also requires following revised applicable Maintenance Manual tasks.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2316.

The FAA reviewed the following material that specifies revising your existing glider maintenance manual and specifies procedures for accomplishing an operational check of the free play of the automatic elevator hook-up and installing new elevator pushrod ends and new elevator rollers and adjusting the free play, as applicable. These documents are distinct since they apply to different glider models.

• DG Aviation GmbH Technical Note No. DG-SS-09, Doc. No. TMDG-SS-09 FE-29-01, Issue 01.f, dated March 5, 2024, for Model DG-400 gliders.

• DG Aviation GmbH Technical Note No. 500/17, Doc. No. TM500-17 FE-29-01, Issue 01.c, dated March 5, 2023, for Model DG-500 gliders.

• DG Aviation GmbH Technical Note No. 800/50, Doc. No. TM800-50 FE-29-01, Issue 01.c, dated March 5, 2024, for Model DG-800 gliders.

• DG Aviation GmbH Technical Note No. 1000/50, Doc. No. TM1000-50 FE-29-01, Issue 01.c, dated March 4, 2024, for Model DG-1000 gliders.

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.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI.”

The MCAI applies to Model DG-100G, DG-100G ELAN, DG-200, DG-200/17, DG-200/17C, DG-300, DG-300 ELAN, DG-300 Club ELAN, DG-300 ELAN ACRO, DG-300 Club ELAN ACRO, DG-600, DG-600/18, DG-600M, DG-600/18 M, DG-800 LA, DG-800 S, DG-808 S, and DG-1000E gliders, but this AD does not because these models do not have an FAA type certificate.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because operating a glider with the elevator play adjustment screw screwed in too far could lead to a loss of pitch control of the glider and loss of the ability to control the glider in flight or during landing. The FAA has determined that certain gliders will need an operational check within 3 months and immediate action if any discrepancy is found and certain other gliders will need replacement of an affected part within 3 months after the effective date of this AD. This compliance time is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule.

Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 101 gliders of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary elevator roller replacement (both Group 1 and Group 2 gliders) or elevator rod replacement (Group 2 gliders) that would be required based on the results of the operational check. The agency has no way of determining the number of gliders that might need these replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

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

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is published yearly. Amendments referred to as “effective date straddling amendments” were published under Order JO 7400.11H (dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023) but became effective under Order JO 7400.11J (dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024). This action incorporates these rules into the current FAA Order JO 7400.11J.

Accordingly, as this is an administrative correction to update final rule amendments into FAA Order JO 7400.11J, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Also, to bring these rules and legal descriptions current, I find that good cause exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11J, 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 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. 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 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by incorporating certain final rules into the current FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024, which are depicted on aeronautical charts.

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.

1. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1088; Airspace Docket No. 24-AWA-2 (89 FR 57728; July 16, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 16, 2024 (89 FR 57728) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 16, 2024 (89 FR 57728) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 16, 2024 (89 FR 57728) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

2. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0383; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASO-2 (89 FR 58262, July 18, 2024; corrected 89 FR 66545, August 16, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 18, 2024 (89 FR 58262; corrected 89 FR 66545, August 16, 2024) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 18, 2024 (89 FR 58262; corrected 89 FR 66545, August 16, 2024) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 18, 2024 (89 FR 58262; corrected 89 FR 66545, August 16, 2024) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

3. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0775; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASW-6 (89 FR 58964; July 22, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 22, 2024 (89 FR 58964) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 22, 2024 (89 FR 58964) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 22, 2024 (89 FR 58964) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

4. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1392; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASW-11 (89 FR 59831; July 24, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 24, 2024 (89 FR 59831) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 24, 2024 (89 FR 59831) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 24, 2024 (89 FR 59831) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

5. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1123; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASW-10 (89 FR 60559; July 26, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60559) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60559) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60559) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

6. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1147; Airspace Docket No. 24-AGL-13 (89 FR 60562; July 26, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60562) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60562) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60562) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

7. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1121; Airspace Docket No. 24-ACE-4 (89 FR 60561; July 26, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60561) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60561) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 26, 2024 (89 FR 60561) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

8. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1146; Airspace Docket No. 24-ACE-5 (89 FR 61013; July 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61013) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61013) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61013) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

9. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1120; Airspace Docket No. 24-ACE-3 (89 FR 61011; July 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61011) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61011) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61011) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

10. For Docket No. FAA-2023-2362; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASW-18 (89 FR 61012; July 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61012) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61012) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on July 30, 2024 (89 FR 61012) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

11. For Docket No. FAA-2023-2502; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-15 (89 FR 66194; August 15, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66194) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66194) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66194) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

12. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0157; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-32 (89 FR 66196; August 15, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66196) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66196) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66196) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

13. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0319; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASO-6 (89 FR 66199; August 15, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66199) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66199) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66199) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

14. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1850; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASO-12 (89 FR 66200; August 15, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66200) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66200) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 15, 2024 (89 FR 66200) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

15. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1361; Airspace Docket No. 24-ANE-5 (89 FR 66988; August 19, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 19, 2024 (89 FR 66988) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 19, 2024 (89 FR 66988) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 19, 2024 (89 FR 66988) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

16. For Docket No. FAA-2023-2513; Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-26 (89 FR 66987; August 19, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 19, 2024 (89 FR 66987) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 19, 2024 (89 FR 66987) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 19, 2024 (89 FR 66987) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

17. For Docket No. FAA-2023-2422; Airspace Docket No. 23-AWP-48 (89 FR 67540; August 21, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67540) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67540) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67540) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

18. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0485; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASW-16 (89 FR 67853; August 22, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67853) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67853) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67853) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

19. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1265; Airspace Docket No. 24-ANM-85 (89 FR 67852; August 22, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67852) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67852) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67852) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

20. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0144; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-34 (89 FR 68339; August 26, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 26, 2024 (89 FR 68339) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 26, 2024 (89 FR 68339) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 26, 2024 (89 FR 68339) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

21. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0732; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASW-5 (89 FR 68777; August 28, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 28, 2024 (89 FR 68777) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 28, 2024 (89 FR 68777) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 28, 2024 (89 FR 68777) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

22. For Docket No. FAA-2024-2086; Airspace Docket No. 23-ANM-64 (89 FR 70469; August 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70469) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70469) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70469) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

23. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1076; Airspace Docket No. 23-AAL-55 (89 FR 70471; August 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70471) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70471) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70471) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

24. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0697; Airspace Docket No. 23-AAL-54 (89 FR 70472; August 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70472) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70472) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70472) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

25. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0438; Airspace Docket No. 23-AAL-13 (89 FR 70473; August 30, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70473) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70473) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70473) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

26. For Docket No. FAA-2023-1957; Airspace Docket No. 23-AAL-28 (89 FR 70474, August 30, 2024; corrected 89 FR 76713; September 19, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70474; corrected 89 FR 76713; September 19, 2024) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70474; corrected 89 FR 76713; September 19, 2024) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70474; corrected 89 FR 76713; September 19, 2024) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

27. For Docket No. FAA-2024-0184; Airspace Docket No. 23-AWP-69 (89 FR 72981; September 9, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 9, 2024 (89 FR 72981) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 9, 2024 (89 FR 72981) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 9, 2024 (89 FR 72981) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

28. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1119; Airspace Docket No. 24-ACE-2 (89 FR 73272; September 10, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 10, 2024 (89 FR 73272) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 10, 2024 (89 FR 73272) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 10, 2024 (89 FR 73272) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

29. For Docket No. FAA-2024-2119; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASW-15 (89 FR 73273; September 10, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 10, 2024 (89 FR 73273) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 10, 2024 (89 FR 73273) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 10, 2024 (89 FR 73273) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

30. For Docket No. FAA-2024-1556; Airspace Docket No. 24-ASW-12 (89 FR 74131; September 12, 2024).

a. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 12, 2024 (89 FR 74131) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

b. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 12, 2024 (89 FR 74131) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024”.

c. In the final rule amending 14 CFR part 71 published on September 12, 2024 (89 FR 74131) for each instance of the words “FAA Order JO 7400.11H” remove those words and add in their place “FAA Order JO 7400.11J”.

The System of Records Notice (SORN) State-29, Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records, has been rescinded. See 89 FR 43974 (May 20, 2024).

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), and (k)(7), records in State-29 were exempted from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), (I), and (f). This rulemaking amends 22 CFR 171.26 by removing STATE-29 from the lists of exemptions.

This rulemaking is published as a final rule with immediate effect due to the good cause exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d). Since State-29 is no longer a SORN, it cannot be listed in the lists of SORNs exempted from the Privacy Act. Therefore, the Department finds good cause to promulgate this rulemaking, with immediate effect (5 U.S.C. 553(d), and finds that public comment on this rulemaking would be unnecessary.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 22 CFR part 171 is amended as follows:

I. Background on the Ohio Plan II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSMRE's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSMRE's Decision VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background on the Ohio Program

The AML Reclamation Program was established by Title IV of the Act (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. ) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded, in part, by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Tribal lands if they develop, and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. Section 405 also requires that each State with an abandoned mine reclamation program must have an approved State regulatory program pursuant to section 503 of the Act.

On August 10, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Ohio Plan. You can find background information on the Ohio Plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Ohio Plan in the August 10, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 34719). You can also find later actions concerning the Ohio Plan and Plan amendments at 30 CFR 935.25.

By letter dated March 17, 2017 (Administrative Record No. OH-2195-01), and in accordance with 30 CFR 884.15(a), Ohio sent us an amendment to its Plan on its own initiative. By letter dated September 15, 2017 (Administrative Record No. OH-2195-04), Ohio provided a revised amendment to describe the proposed revisions more clearly. By letter dated September 18, 2018 (Administrative Record No. Oh-2195-06), Ohio submitted an updated amendment with a revision to section XI of its Plan.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the May 10, 2019, Federal Register (84 FR 20599). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on June 10, 2019. We received a single comment that was not germane to the Plan amendment, and, therefore, we have not provided a response.

The following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15. We are approving the amendment as described below. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning minor wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the Plan amendment available at www.regulations.gov. OSMRE also notes that we are separately reviewing State reclamation plans to identify any components that may need to be addressed in light of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, more commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Pub. L. 117-58). That review is ongoing and not reflected in our decision on Ohio's amendment here.

On December 19, 2016, Ohio's Legislature amended the statutory language at sections 1515.27, 1513.28, 1513.30, 1513.31, 1513.32, and 1513.37 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) regarding the process of determining site eligibility for reclamation activities. See 2016 Sub. H.B. No. 471. The updated language eliminated references to the sunsetted Council on Unreclaimed Strip Mined Lands and designated the chief of the Division of Mineral Resource Management (DMRM) as the entity responsible for the prioritization and approval process of proposed projects eligible for the unreclaimed lands funds. This updated language reflects administrative changes made over time to the agency authorized to administer the State's program for regulating surface coal mining and reclamation. The updated statutory language is in accordance with SMCRA and the Federal requirements of 30 CFR subchapter R, which does not proscribe a particular State administrative structure responsible for prioritizing and approving proposed projects. Therefore, we are approving the updated statutory language of the ORC as an amendment to the Ohio Plan.

Ohio's amendment also includes additional draft statutory changes to ORC 1513.37 to clarify and elaborate upon the priority by which land and water resources are eligible to receive Federal grants for reclamation of abandoned mine lands in accordance with the 2006 SMCRA amendments. Ohio's draft statutory language at ORC 1513.37(B) revises several aspects of the priority criteria. The number of priority categories is reduced from six to three. The highest priority categories (Priority 1 and 2) are expanded to include the land and water resources adjacent to a prioritized site and the term “general welfare” has been struck from those priorities. Additionally, Ohio drafted revisions to the specifications of the priority categories to allow lower priority projects (Priority 3) to be initiated before the completion of higher priority projects (Priority 1 or 2), provided that the expenditure is done at eligible AML sites adjacent to higher priority projects (Priority 1 or 2).

The SMCRA amendments were signed into law on December 20, 2006, as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. See Public Law 109-432. The 2006 amendments substantially modified the AML reclamation program in Title IV of SMCRA, including, but not limited to, removing previous priorities 4 and 5 and striking the term “general welfare” as components of priorities 1 and 2. See U.S.C. 1233(a). In addition, the 2006 amendments also permitted the initiation of Priority 3 reclamation projects before completing all Priority 1 and 2 projects if the Priority 3 reclamation is performed in conjunction with a Priority 1 or 2 project. See 30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(7). We note that our guidelines generally direct that reclamation of lower priority projects should not begin until the higher priority projects are at least in the process of being reclaimed. However, consistent with the 2006 amendments and associated changes to the implementing regulations, we also recognize that it can be economically and logistically advantageous to address lower priority problems as part of abating higher priority problems. Allowing a State to reclaim Priority 3 problems ( e.g., spoil ridges) as part of abating Priority 1 or 2 hazards ( e.g., highwalls) leverages its limited funding to get the best reclamation at a lower cost. This approach also generally reclaims more AML problems overall, and in some cases can more effectively abate and reclaim hazards, while reducing the cost of reclaiming the higher and lower priority problems.

Ohio offers draft statutory changes at ORC 1513.37(C)(3) regarding the eligibility of lands and waters affected by past coal mining. The Federal requirements at 30 CFR 874.14 were revised in 2008 (73 FR 67576), consistent with the 2006 SMCRA amendments, to remove the 30 percent limitation on grant funds that States and Indian Tribes could expend on water supply affected by coal mining. Ohio's draft language at ORC 1513.37(C)(3) thus identifies the protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of facilities sourced by waters adversely affected by coal mining practices as projects eligible for funding.

Ohio offers draft statutory changes at ORC 1513.37(C)(5) regarding the inventory of eligible lands and waters maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The draft language allows for the chief to offer amendments to update the inventory as it applies to eligible lands under the jurisdiction of Ohio. This would allow Ohio to reclassify certain current Priority 3 lands and waters as Priority 1 or Priority 2 expenditures, in line with the ORC 1513.37 draft statutory language discussed above, which reflects the 2006 SMCRA amendments.

Ohio also offers draft revisions at ORC 1513.37(E)(3) to remove the 50% match requirement for watershed groups requesting grant funding from the Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) Abatement and Treatment Fund for remediation projects. Ohio considers these watershed groups essential to AMD treatment and abatement projects, in part because they are often able to complete remediation projects at a fraction of the cost compared to DMRM staff or environmental consultants. The groups are typically citizen-based charitable organizations that do not have the funding for the 50% match currently required to receive grant money. Ohio recognizes the importance of these groups and the essential work that they do, primarily in distressed counties in Ohio. By eliminating the matching requirement, Ohio is removing a burden on the watershed groups that might prevent them from participating in the program. There is no Federal law or condition of the Federal award that requires a matching grant funds from subaward recipients.

These statutory revisions were not enacted through the legislative bills Ohio identified in its submissions (2016 Sub. H.B. No. 471 and 2017 Am. Sub. H.B. No. 49) and are not currently part of the Ohio Revised Code. To the extent Ohio proceeds to enact these revisions, we find the draft statutory language meets the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR subchapter R. These revisions are largely reflected in Ohio's revised AML Plan, which we are approving. However, should Ohio actually enact statutory changes that require further revision to its Plan, the Plan revisions must be submitted for our review in accordance with 30 CFR part 884.

Ohio is updating and replacing its AML Plan with a version that is structured similarly to the Federal AML plan content requirements for States found at 30 CFR 884.13. Ohio has made multiple editorial changes for brevity, structural alignment with the Federal requirements, consistency with the 2006 changes to SMCRA under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-432) and the associated changes to the implementing Federal regulations on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67576), and the ORC. In order to simplify the Plan, the new version omits documentation that is either incorporated by reference, is no longer applicable to Ohio's AML Program, was replaced by updated information, or was never required to be included in the Plan. We also understand that additional revision and/or supplemental material concerning the Governor's letter, the Legal Opinion, and other components of the plan referenced below may be submitted in the near future to encompass components of the BIL and section 801 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (commonly referred to as the Safeguarding Treatment for the Restoration of Ecosystems from Abandoned Mines (STREAM) Act) (Pub. L. 117-328). We are not addressing those various potential revisions in this review but are aware that they may generate additional plan amendments in the near future.

Ohio's revised plan references the Governor's letters, dated November 21, 1979, and amended February 3, 1981, designating the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation as the agency authorized to administer the State's program for regulating surface coal mining and reclamation, and for receiving and administering reclamation grants under 30 CFR part 886. These letters were submitted and approved as part of the original State reclamation plan and are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(1). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion. However, the Division of Mines and Reclamation was combined with the Division of Oil and Gas (H.B. 601, effective June 14, 2000) to create the DMRM in the Department of Natural Resources. As a result of these changes, the 1979 and 1981 Governor's letters should be replaced with an updated version to designate DMRM as the agency responsible for the AML program, or a supplemental submission added to the Plan providing that additional context.

Ohio's revised plan references the legal opinion from the State Attorney General, dated October 4, 1979, verifying that the Division of Reclamation had sufficient legal authority under Ohio State law to conduct the State reclamation program in accordance with the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA. This legal opinion was submitted and approved as part of the original State reclamation plan and is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(2). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion. However, the Division of Mines and Reclamation was combined with the Division of Oil and Gas (H.B. 601, effective June 14, 2000) to create the DMRM in the Department of Natural Resources. As a result of this change, the legal opinion should be replaced with an updated version that reflects the designated agency, DMRM, as the agency responsible for the AML program and the agency that has the authority under State law to conduct the program in accordance with the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA, or Ohio should add a supplemental submission to the Plan providing that additional context.

Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3) require a description of the policies and procedures to be followed by the designated agency in conducting a Title IV reclamation program. Parts IV through XI of Ohio's revised plan, as discussed in more detail below, provide descriptions of, and legal citations for, these requirements.

Part IV, Purpose of the Program, provides a general overview of Ohio's AML Program. Specifically, Ohio's revised plan identifies inadequately reclaimed mine sites as risks to public safety and environmental quality and describes the goal of the revised plan as being to continue to reclaim land and water resources affected by coal mining, in accordance with State and Federal law and rules. This section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(i).

Part V, Ranking Eligible Lands and Waters, provides the relevant eligibility and prioritization criteria to assess potential project areas for reclamation. These criteria are based on the updated requirements of section 403 and 404 of SMCRA, as well as several additional factors Ohio uses to assess and prioritize potential project areas for reclamation. Consistent with section 404 of SMCRA, coal lands and waters are deemed eligible if they were mined for coal or affected by such mining, waste banks, coal processing, or other coal mining processes, or abandoned/left in an inadequate state as outlined in this section. As a general matter, the ranking of eligible projects will be conducted in the following order of priority: emergency projects, as approved by us under section 410 of SMCRA; projects protecting public health, safety and property from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining practices (Priority 1); projects protecting public health and safety from adverse effects of coal mining (Priority 2); and projects restoring land, waters, and the environment previously degraded by coal mining, for natural resource conservation and restoration (Priority 3). By providing the specific criteria for the eligibility and ranking projects to be funded, Ohio's revised Plan is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(ii).

This section of the revised plan also includes guidelines for the annual grant application to be submitted to us as specified in section 405(f) and (h) of SMCRA and 30 CFR part 886; policies that address set-aside funds in accordance with section 402(g)(6) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)) and 30 CFR part 876; policies that address water supply projects in accordance with section 402(g)(1) and (5) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(1)-(5)); procedures for reclamation projects receiving less than 50% government funding, including adopting by reference 30 CFR part 707; and policies for handling emergency projects.

Part VI, Coordination with Other Agencies, and Part VII, Coordination with OSMRE, describe Ohio's coordination with various Federal and State agencies, watershed groups, local governments, universities, and others in order to achieve mutual reclamation goals. Additionally, Ohio will consult with the relevant State and Federal regulatory agencies as necessary to ensure all required permissions are in order prior to project commencement. These sections are consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iii).

Part VIII, Policy for Land Acquisition, Management, and Disposition, describes the acquisition, management, and disposal of lands and waters adversely affected by past coal mining practices. Specifically, if it has been determined by both Ohio and us that acquisition of land is required for successful reclamation, the State will comply with 30 CFR part 879 regarding the acquisition, management, and disposal of the lands and waters. This section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iv).

Ohio's revised plan includes sections regarding work on private lands. In Part IX, Policy Regarding Reclamation on Private Lands, Ohio establishes policy provisions, including the completion of appraisals and filing of liens, for the reclamation projects on private land, in accordance with 30 CFR part 887. Part X, Policy Regarding Rights of Entry, describes Ohio's policies and procedures regarding rights of entry to lands or property, which are in accordance with 30 CFR part 877. These sections are consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(v) and (vi).

Part XI, Public Participation, indicates that Ohio is opting to use our public participation process, as outlined in 30 CFR 884.14(a), for State Reclamation Plan amendments and updates rather than the public participation process established during the development and approval of the original State Reclamation Plan.

Ohio's revised plan describes that opportunities for public participation and involvement in specific AML projects will be provided during the development and implementation of the annual grant application and performance agreement between us and DMRM. In addition, Ohio provides that DMRM maintains ongoing outreach with local governments and businesses regarding building on or over abandoned mines as well as detailing significant activities related to AML projects on their website. This section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vii).

Part XII, Program Management and Administration, of Ohio's revised Plan describes the administrative and management structure of the AML Program. Section B of part XII identifies the organization of the agency designated to reclaim abandoned mine lands affected by coal mining activities (DMRM) and describes DMRM's major functions as responding to citizen concerns, environmental document preparation, grant writing and management, remediation design, bidding and contracting, and construction. Section C of part XII describes additional agencies of Ohio's Department of Natural Resources that assist in the AML program, as well as the relationship between DMRM and other State agencies that play a relevant role in reclamation activities. Section D of part XII outlines the personnel staffing policies that DMRM will follow in the recruitment and retention for the AML Program. Section E describes the purchasing and procurement systems to be used by the agency, and section F describes the accounting system to be used by the agency. This section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4).

Part XIII, Description of Reclamation Activities on Impacted Land and Waters, includes general descriptions, derived from available data, of the reclamation activities to be conducted. Specifically, the plan includes: maps depicting the known and suspected abandoned coal mines in the State, the known and suspected watersheds impacted by mining, and the status of the State's Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment projects; a description of the problems occurring on the identified lands and waters in Ohio; and how the Plan proposes to address each of the identified problems. Ohio recognizes that individual sites will vary in scope and breadth of adverse effects caused by mining and provides an extensive list of proven reclamation techniques and approaches that may be applied in any given site. This section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)

Part XIV, Description of Local Conditions, includes a general description, derived from available data, of the conditions prevailing in the geographic areas of the State where reclamation is planned. The Plan, in part XVI.A, describes the economic base of the Ohio counties affected by coal mining. Aesthetic, historical, and cultural elements of significance are considered in part XVI.B. The wide variety of recreational opportunities of the area are enumerated in part XVI.C. The ecosystem and ecology of the area, the adverse effects of coal mining on these systems, and how the Abandoned Mine Land Program works to address these effects is described in part XVI.D. This section is consistent with the requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6).

Thus, we find Ohio's Plan, as amended, meets all content requirements stipulated under 30 CFR 884.13 while also updating the Plan consistent with changes made to the Federal program in 2006 and 2008. Therefore, we are approving Ohio's revised Abandoned Mine Land reclamation plan.

In the May 10, 2019, Federal Register document announcing our receipt of this amendment, we asked for public comments (Administrative Record No. OH-2195-08). The comment period closed on June 10, 2019. No requests for public meetings or hearings were received. We received a single comment that was not germane to the program amendment and therefore we have not provided a response.

On March 22, 2017, under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2) and 884.15(a), we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Ohio Plan (Administrative Record No. OH-2195-02). We did not receive any comments.

On March 22, 2019, OSMRE solicited comments on the proposed amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. OH-2195-02). The EPA did not respond to our request.

On March 22, 2019, OSMRE solicited comments on the proposed amendment from the Ohio SHPO and ACHP (Administrative Record No. OH-2195-02). We did not receive comments from the SHPO or ACHP.

Based on the above findings, we are approving Ohio's AML Plan amendment that was sent to us on March 17, 2017 (Administrative Record No. 2195-01), and subsequent submittals providing clarification on September 15, 2017 (Administrative Record No. 2195-04), and an addition to the amendment request on September 18, 2018 (Administrative Record No. 2195-06).

To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 935 that codify decisions concerning the Ohio program. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication.

This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications that would result in private property being taken for government use without just compensation under the law. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations.

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993 (OMB Memo M-94-3), the approval of plan amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Executive Order 13563, which reaffirms and supplements Executive Order 12866, retains this exemption.

The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that this Federal Register document meets the criteria of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency review its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; that the agency write its legislation and regulations to minimize litigation; and that the agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Because section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under this Executive order to the quality of this Federal Register document and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive order did not extend to the language of the Ohio Plan or to the Plan amendment that Ohio drafted.

This rule has potential federalism implications as defined by section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to “grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible” with respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by the States. Ohio, through its approved reclamation program, implements and administers SMCRA and its implementing regulations at the State level. This rule approves an amendment to the Ohio Plan submitted and drafted by Ohio, and thus, is consistent with the direction to provide maximum administrative discretion to States.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on the Ohio Plan that does not include Indian lands, as defined by SMCRA, or reclamation on Indian lands. Indian lands are regulated independently under the applicable Federal reclamation program. The Department's consultation policy also acknowledges that our rules may have Tribal implications where the State proposing the amendment encompasses ancestral lands in areas with minable coal. We are currently working to identify and engage appropriate Tribal stakeholders to devise a constructive approach for consulting on these amendments.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. We are not required to provide a detailed statement under NEPA because this rule qualifies for a categorical exclusion under the U.S. Department of the Interior Departmental Manual, part 516, section 13.5(B)(29).

This rule does not include requests and requirements of an individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain information and report it to a Federal agency. As this rule does not contain information collection requirements, a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) is not required.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to constitute a major rule.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. This determination is based on an analysis of the corresponding Federal regulations, which were determined not to impose an unfunded mandate. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 935 is amended as set forth below:

On August 6, 2024, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (89 FR 63850-63851) to remove the option to request PS Forms 3547, Notice to Mailer of Correction in Address, and PS Form 3579, Notice of Undeliverable Periodical, for packages with an IMpb. In response to the proposed rule, the Postal Service received one formal response containing two comments. The commenter asked if a customer does not register for Electronic Service Requested and leaves Change Service Requested on their shipping label, how will the package be treated and then had two questions as follows:

Comment: The first comment questioned whether packages with Change Service Requested will be just disposed of?

Response: Yes, Change Service Requested will cause packages that are undeliverable as addressed (UAA) to be disposed of by USPS.

Comment: The second comment questioned if packages not having an endorsement would be treated as Forwarding Service Requested?

Response: No, the disposition of the package will be based on the printed endorsement when present, however a separate notice, when applicable, would not be generated unless the Mailer ID (MID) in the IMpb is enrolled to generate ACS. Following is a general list of how the package would be handle based on the printed endorsement:

• Change Service Requested—If UAA, piece disposed of by USPS with no separate notice provided, unless the MID in the IMpb is enrolled to generate ACS.

• Address Service Requested—If UAA, piece forwarded or returned with no separate notice provided, unless the MID in the IMpb is enrolled to generate ACS.

• Forwarding Service Requested—If UAA, piece is either forwarded or returned.

• Return Service Requested—If UAA, piece returned to sender with new address or reason for nondelivery attached.

• No Endorsement—If UAA, default treatment is based on the mail class.

The Postal Service is requiring IMpb mailers that desire address correction information from undeliverable as addressed (UAA) mail to receive address correction notices electronically via Address Change Service (ACS). IMpb mailers will have to sign up for IMpb ACS or Traditional ACS.

The Postal Service is implementing this change effective March 5, 2025. However, mailers may begin to request ACS immediately. We believe this revision will provide customers with more efficient and less costly address correction notices.

The Postal Service provides additional resources to assist customers with this price change for competitive products. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files, and Federal Register Notices, which may be found on the Postal Explorer® website at https://pe.usps.com .

The Postal Service adopts the described changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations .

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

Accordingly, the Postal Service amends Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations as follows (see 39 CFR 111.1):

The original Mecklenburg County LIP was submitted to EPA on June 14, 1990, and EPA approved the plan on May 2, 1991. See 56 FR 20140. Mecklenburg County prepared three submittals to modify the LIP for, among other things, general consistency with the North Carolina SIP. 1 The three submittals were submitted as follows: NCDAQ transmitted the October 25, 2017, submittal to EPA but later withdrew it from review through a letter dated February 15, 2019. On April 24, 2020, NCDAQ resubmitted the October 25, 2017, update to EPA and also submitted the January 21, 2016, and January 14, 2019, updates. Due to an inconsistency with public notice at the local level, these submittals were withdrawn from EPA through a letter dated February 15, 2019. Mecklenburg County corrected this error, and NCDAQ submitted the updates to EPA in a submittal dated April 24, 2020. 2

The April 24, 2020, submittal includes changes and updates to the following rules to align them more closely with their analogous SIP-approved North Carolina regulations: MCAPCO Rules 2.0502, Purpose ; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants ; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills ; 2.0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants ; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries ; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes ; and 2.0533, Stack Height. EPA is approving the incorporation of these rules into the Mecklenburg LIP. 3

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 25, 2024 (89 FR 60339), EPA proposed to approve the April 24, 2020, SIP revision. The details of North Carolina's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action are explained further in the July 25, 2024, NPRM. Comments on the NPRM were due on or before August 26, 2024. EPA received three sets of comments on the July 25, 2024, NPRM. One set of comments is not relevant to this action and two sets of comments are substantively identical. The two substantively identical comment sets are addressed below. All three comment sets are available in the docket for this action.

EPA received two substantively identical sets of comments on the July 25, 2024, NPRM from Clean Future (Commenter). EPA has summarized and responded to the comments below.

Comments: The Commenter generally supports EPA's action and states that this SIP revision is “an important step toward improving air quality management in the region.” The Commenter provides generalized suggestions regarding the LIP and implementation of the LIP, including a request for a requirement that “actively gets updates and statements of facilities,” a request for regular assessments to ensure the regulations are being properly implemented, and a recommendation that EPA establish a mechanism for periodic review and adjustment of the regulations to incorporate new developments and address any unforeseen challenges. The Commenter also notes that there should be monitoring and enforcement and “effective mechanisms and reporting,” notes the importance of reviewing how these updated standards compare with current federal and State guidelines and notes the importance of assessing the effectiveness of these regulations to reduce emissions.

Response: EPA appreciates the Commenter's support for this action. Due to the general nature of the Commenter's requests and suggestions, EPA is only able to provide general responses.

The scope of EPA's review in evaluating SIP revisions is limited to the process in CAA section 110 and EPA's implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR part 51. Under CAA section 110, States have broad discretion to choose the mix of emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques that they will implement (or update) through a SIP to provide for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's role, with respect to a SIP revision, is focused on reviewing the submission to determine whether it meets the minimum criteria of the CAA. These minimum criteria include CAA section 110(l), which prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Where a SIP revision meets the minimum CAA criteria, EPA must approve the submission. When approving a SIP revision, the Agency is not establishing its own requirements for the State to implement. If, at any time, EPA finds that a SIP is inadequate to attain or maintain the relevant NAAQS or otherwise does not comply with the CAA, EPA has the authority under CAA section 110(k)(5) to require the State to revise its SIP to correct such inadequacies.

In general, the Act addresses monitoring, reporting, and enforcement in SIPs (as well as LIPs). See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (requiring “enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques”); CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) (requiring the “establishment and operation of devices . . . to . . . monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality”); CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) (requiring “a program to provide for the enforcement” of such measures); CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) (addressing reporting). The LIP revisions at issue here are narrow and only include updates to emission standards in MCAPCO 2.0502, Purpose ; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants ; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills ; 2.0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants ; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries ; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes ; and 2.0533, Stack Height. The revision does not alter any existing LIP-approved monitoring, enforcement, or reporting requirements, remove any such requirements, or add any such requirements. Given the limited nature of this SIP revision and EPA's role in reviewing SIP revisions discussed above, the comments regarding monitoring, reporting, and enforcement are beyond the scope of this action. Regarding the Commenter's recommendation to establish a mechanism for periodic review and adjustment of regulations to incorporate new developments and challenges, EPA reiterates that it has the authority to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5) if, at any time, it finds the SIP to be inadequate to attain or maintain the relevant NAAQS or otherwise does not comply with the CAA.

Regarding the importance of assessing the effectiveness of these regulations to reduce emissions and comparing the revision with federal and State guidelines, EPA reviewed the revision in accordance with CAA section 110(l), which prohibits the Agency from approving a SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act. In developing the NPRM, EPA evaluated each rule revision, including its potential impact on air quality and its consistency with applicable CAA requirements, and determined that the revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l). EPA is therefore approving this revision to the Mecklenburg LIP.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and II of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the following revised MCAPCO Rules, with a local effective date of December 15, 2015, into the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose ; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants ; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills ;  4 2.0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants ;  5 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries ;  6 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes ; and 2.0533, Stack Height. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 7

EPA is approving the aforementioned SIP revision by incorporating the following MCAPCO Rules, with a local effective date of December 15, 2015, into the Mecklenburg LIP: 2.0502, Purpose ; 2.0507, Particulates from Chemical Fertilizer Manufacturing Plants ; 2.0508, Particulates from Pulp and Paper Mills ; 2.0513, Particulates from Portland Cement Plants ; 2.0514, Particulates from Ferrous Jobbing Foundries ; 2.0515, Particulates from Miscellaneous Industrial Processes ; and 2.0533, Stack Height.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCDAQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

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

States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program is revised to become more stringent or broader in scope, States must revise their programs and apply to EPA to authorize the revisions. Authorization of revisions to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other revisions occur. Most commonly, States must revise their programs because of revisions to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.

On August 9, 2022, West Virginia submitted a final program revision application (with updated checklists submitted the following year) seeking authorization of revisions to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated through August 21, 2019.

EPA concludes that West Virginia's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA grants West Virginia final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in its authorization application, as outlined below in section G of this preamble.

West Virginia has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those HSWA requirements and prohibitions for which West Virginia has not been authorized, including issuing HSWA permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

This action serves to authorize revisions to West Virginia's authorized hazardous waste program. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which West Virginia is being authorized by this action are already effective and are not changed by this action. West Virginia has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of its program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

• Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;

• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and

• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether West Virginia has taken its own actions.

Along with this direct final rule, EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register that serves as the proposal to authorize these State program revisions. EPA did not publish a proposed rulemaking before this issue of the Federal Register because EPA views this action as a routine program change and does not expect comments that oppose its approval. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now, as described in section E of this preamble.

If EPA receives adverse comments pertaining to this State revision, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of West Virginia's program revisions on the proposed rulemaking mentioned in the previous section, after considering all comments received during the comment period. EPA will then address all relevant comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.

West Virginia initially received final authorization of its hazardous waste program effective May 29, 1986 (May 15, 1986, 51 FR 17739). EPA granted authorization for revisions to West Virginia's regulatory program on May 10, 2000, effective July 10, 2000 (65 FR 29973); October 16, 2003, effective December 15, 2003 (68 FR 59542); and November 25, 2013, effective January 24, 2014 (78 FR 70225).

On August 9, 2022, West Virginia submitted a final program revision application (with subsequent corrections) seeking authorization of additional revisions to its hazardous waste program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. West Virginia's revision application includes various regulations that are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, selected Federal final hazardous waste rules, as published in the Federal Register through August 19, 2019.

EPA now makes a direct final rule, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that West Virginia's hazardous waste program revision application satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA grants West Virginia final authorization for the following program revisions:

West Virginia seeks authority to administer the Federal requirements that are listed in Table 1 of this preamble. This table lists the West Virginia analogs that have been revised; these revisions are being recognized as no less stringent than the analogous Federal requirements.

West Virginia's regulatory references are to the West Virginia Code of State Regulations, Title 33, Series 20 “Hazardous Waste Management System” (33CSR20), effective July 1, 2020; Title 45, Series 25 “Control of Air Pollution from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities” (45CSR25), effective June 1, 2020; Title 150, Series 11 “Rules Governing the Transportation of Hazardous Waste by Rail” (150CSR11), effective December 24, 2002; and Title 157, Series 7 “Transportation of Hazardous Wastes Upon the Roads and Highways” (157CSR7), effective March 17, 2020.

In addition, West Virginia will be authorized to carry out, in lieu of the Federal program, State-initiated revisions to provisions of the State's program. These State-initiated revisions are related to the adoption and renumbering of provisions throughout the State's hazardous waste regulations. The changes improve the clarity of the State's regulations and provide the necessary conforming changes due to State terms, or which are related to Federal amendments that do not apply to West Virginia. Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble list the updates on 33CSR20, effective July 1, 2020, where the State incorporates by reference per 33CSR20 sec. 1.5 the Federal counterparts in effect on August 21, 2019.

When revised State rules differ from the Federal rules in the RCRA State authorization process, EPA determines whether the State rules are equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the Federal program. Pursuant to RCRA section 3009, 42 U.S.C. 6929, State programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than the Federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally enforceable. West Virginia's hazardous waste program contains several provisions that are more stringent than the RCRA program. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. West Virginia's regulation at 33CSR20 section 4 requires notification to the State of activities involving hazardous waste in the State of West Virginia. This is in addition to the Federal notification requirements found at 40 CFR 262.10(a)(2)(i), 262.13(c)(1), 262.14(a), 262.16, 262.17, 262.232(a)(2), and 266.80(a).

2. West Virginia's regulation at 33CSR20 section 5.3 excepts from incorporation by reference the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 262.14(a)(5)(iv) and (v). These Federal provisions list some conditions that must be met by very small quantity generators (VSQGs) in order to be exempt from meeting most of the requirements of 40 CFR parts 124, 262-268, and 270. West Virginia's program is more stringent because meeting the conditions listed in the Federal provisions will not exempt VSQGs from the analogous requirements listed above.

After this authorization revision, West Virginia will continue to issue permits covering all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer all such permits. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits that it issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until the timing and process for effective transfer to the State are mutually agreed upon. Until such time as EPA formally transfers responsibility for a permit to West Virginia and EPA terminates its permit, EPA and West Virginia agree to coordinate the administration of such permit in order to maintain consistency. EPA will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in section G of this preamble after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which West Virginia is not yet authorized.

West Virginia is not seeking authorization to operate the program on Indian lands, since there are no Federally recognized Indian lands in West Virginia.

Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the authorization of West Virginia's revisions at this time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart XX, for this authorization of West Virginia's program revisions until a later date.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), because this action authorizes State requirements pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore, this action was not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In any case, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule since there are no Federally recognized tribes in West Virginia.

This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant, and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, because it approves pre-existing State rules that are no less stringent than existing Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action will not be effective until November 29, 2024 because it is a direct final rule.

In FR Doc. 2024-07105 of April 23, 2024 (89 FR 30448), the final rule titled “Medicare Program; Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program for Contract Year 2024—Remaining Provisions and Contract Year 2025 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Medicare Cost Plan Program, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE)”, there were several typographical and technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting amendment.

We are correcting typographical and grammatical errors in the regulatory text of §§ 422.101(f)(3)(iv)(B)( 3 ), 422.514(h)(2), and 423.346(e)(2), respectively.

We are correcting inadvertent technical and typographical errors in the regulations text of § 423.153.

In § 460.20, we inadvertently revised paragraph (c), when we intended to redesignate paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (d) through (f) and add a new paragraph (c). Our intent was to finalize the proposed changes to § 460.20 that were included in the proposed rule that appeared in the December 27, 2022 Federal Register (87 FR 79452) titled “Medicare Program; Contract Year 2024 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage Program, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program, Medicare Cost Plan Program, Medicare Parts A, B, C, and D Overpayment Provisions of the Affordable Care Act and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly; Health Information Technology Standards and Implementation Specifications.” We are providing corrected instructions to address this error and redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) and (f), and to specify that we are adding new paragraph (d).

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Specifically, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires the agency to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register that includes a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed, and the terms and substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. Further, 5 U.S.C. 553 requires the agency to give interested parties the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through public comment on a proposed rule. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment for rulemaking to carry out the administration of the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (the Act) mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements. In cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, also provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

We believe that this correcting amendment does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements of the APA or section 1871 of the Act. This correcting amendment corrects typographical and technical errors in the regulatory text of the final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting amendment is intended to ensure that the information in the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the regulatory text correction in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our policies or regulatory changes, but rather, we are simply implementing the policies and regulatory changes that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized.

This final rule correcting amendment is intended solely to ensure that the final rule and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) accurately reflect policies and regulatory changes that have been adopted through rulemaking. Furthermore, such notice and comment procedures would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects our policies and regulatory changes. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services corrects 42 CFR chapter IV by making the following correcting amendments:

Background

The implementing regulations for the Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are found at 50 CFR part 648 subpart L, and require the specification of regulatory harvest limits, including an acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), total allowable landings (TAL), and a coastwide commercial quota, with each fishing year running from May 1 through April 30. Under the authority of section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS issued a temporary emergency rule to implement spiny dogfish specifications for the first 6 months of the 2024 fishing year on May 22, 2024 (89 FR 44924), and took public comment on the emergency rule through June 21, 2024. The Federal Register notification on the emergency rule (89 FR 44926) indicated that “[a]fter considering public comments on this rule, NMFS may extend the interim measures for one additional period of not more than 186 days to maintain these measures for the remainder of the 2024 fishing year.” The emergency rule set the ABC equal to the overfishing limit (OFL) of 7,818 mt (17.24 million lb), used the Monitoring Committee's recommended model-based values for discards, and accounted for expected recreational landings, resulting in a commercial quota of 5,140 mt (11.33 million lb).

The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils) jointly manage the Atlantic Spiny Dogfish FMP, with the Mid-Atlantic Council acting as the administrative lead. NMFS was unable to approve the Councils' recommended 2024 specifications because they relied on a discard estimate that violated National Standard 2, which requires management measures to be based on the best available science.

Given significant concerns raised by the fishing industry about the risk to the associated fishing communities if the commercial quota were substantially reduced, NMFS took emergency action to set the 2024 spiny dogfish specifications at levels higher than the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Monitoring Committee recommendation for 2024. NMFS set the 2024 specifications with the ABC equal to the OFL, resulting in no more than a 50-percent chance of overfishing, consistent with National Standard 1. These specifications resulted in a higher commercial quota when using the model-based discard estimate, which is considered the best scientific information available. The emergency rule responded to concerns under National Standard 8 regarding the ability of the dogfish industry, and the communities that depend upon it, to continue to participate in the fishery while remaining consistent with the provisions of National Standard 1, that we prevent overfishing, and National Standard 2, that we base management measures on the best scientific information available. The Federal Register notification for the original emergency more fully describes the rationale for this action.

The 2023 ACL was 7,751 mt (17.09 million lb), and data on the dogfish fishery's performance in fishing year 2023 became available after the publication of the initial emergency rule. Final catch information indicate that total dead catch in fishing year 2023, including Federal commercial, state-only commercial, and recreational landings and estimated dead discards, was 8,243 mt (18.17 million lb). This represents a fishing year 2023 ACL overage of 491 mt (1.08 million lb). The spiny dogfish regulations at 50 CFR 648.233(c) require a deduction of the exact amount of the ACL overage, by weight, from a subsequent single-fishing-year ACL, as soon as possible. This action extends the emergency specifications through the end of the 2024 fishing year and reduces the remaining ACL and commercial quota to account for the 2023 ACL overage, as required by the regulations. We could not have included this adjustment in the initial emergency rule because complete data on fishing year 2023 were not yet available when that rule was promulgated.

The emergency measures will expire on November 18, 2024, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act's initial 180-day limit on the duration of an emergency action. The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows an extension of emergency actions for up to 186 days, provided that the public had an opportunity to comment on the emergency action and, for Council-recommended actions, the Council is actively preparing measures to address the emergency. We will consider the Councils' recommended specifications for 2025 and 2026 in subsequent rulemakings. This emergency action is intended to provide a 1-year bridge, with a slightly higher risk of overfishing ( i.e., 50 percent, versus the Council-recommended 46 percent) on a stock above its biomass target, to mitigate the potential long-term adverse economic and social impact should the fishery lose access to its sole remaining commercial processor.

Extending the emergency action prevents the spiny dogfish fishery from reverting to the 2023 specifications that would be in place through a rollover provision when the emergency action expires. The underlying emergency conditions have not changed. The 2023 specifications included a higher ABC and commercial quota, which are not consistent with the best available scientific information to prevent overfishing with at least a 50-percent probability. Reverting to the 2023 specifications would result in an increased risk of overfishing. Fishing vessel owners and operators have changed their fishing behavior in anticipation of the emergency action's continuation through the end of the fishing year. Therefore, we are extending the emergency measures through the end of the 2024 fishing year (April 30, 2025). For the same reasons noted in the May 22, 2024, emergency rule, NMFS has determined that extending the emergency action to maintain the 2024 specifications through the end of the fishing year meets the criteria for emergency action.

This action will extend the 2024 specifications through the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2025, and will reduce the ACL and commercial quota to pay back an ACL overage in fishing year 2023. By operation of the spiny dogfish accountability measures, a payback for an overage must occur “as soon as possible from a subsequent single fishing year ACL.” (50 CFR 648.233(c)). The initial emergency rule set the 2024 ACL at 7,782 mt (17.16 million lb) and the commercial quota at 5,140 mt (11.33 million lb). When accounting for the 491 mt (1.08 million lb) overage in fishing year 2023, this results in an updated ACL of 7,291 mt (16.07 million lb) and a commercial quota of 4,649 mt (10.25 million lb) for fishing year 2024 (table 1).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2024 Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limit for vessels directed fishing for pollock using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 18,316 Chinook salmon (§ 679.21(h)(2)(ii)).

In accordance with § 679.21(h)(8)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2024 Chinook salmon PSC limit established for vessels directed fishing for pollock using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock by vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay closing directed fishing for pollock by vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 25, 2024.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

The 2024 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 5,884 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and reallocations (89 FR 24736, April 9, 2024 and 89 FR 67327, August 20, 2024).

The 2024 Pacific cod TAC specified for trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 29,754 mt as established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and reallocation (89 FR 67327, August 20, 2024).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that trawl catcher vessels will not be able to harvest 1,000 mt of the 2024 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 9 ).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(A), NMFS reallocates 1,000 mt from trawl catcher vessels to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

The harvest specifications for 2024 Pacific cod included in the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024) and reallocations (89 FR 24736, April 9, 2024 and 89 FR 67327, August 20, 2024) are revised as follows: 6,884 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear, and 28,754 mt to trawl catcher vessels.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 24, 2024.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.