The AWPC Model AW609 is a two-engine powered-lift with a maximum weight of 17,500 lbs., and a capacity of two crew and nine passengers. The aircraft has two “proprotors” instead of propellers or rotors. The AW609 design is a direct descendant of the Bell Helicopter Model BA609 certification project, which had design origins from the experimental Bell XV-15 aircraft.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed airworthiness criteria for the AW609 powered-lift, which published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2023 (88 FR 37805).

After several changes of applicants, on February 15, 2012, AgustaWestland Tilt-Rotor Company, now AWPC, applied for a type certificate for the Model AW609. Under 14 CFR 21.17(c), an application for type certification is effective for three years, unless the FAA approves a longer period. Section 21.17(d) provides that, where a type certificate has not been issued within the time limit established under § 21.17(c), the applicant may file for an extension and update the designated applicable regulations in the type certification basis. Since the project was not certificated within the established time limit, the FAA approved a series of requests for extension by AWPC with the most recent request submitted on February 22, 2024. If the application extension is approved, the date of the updated type certification basis will change from March 31, 2021, to March 31, 2024.

Powered-lift are type certificated as special class aircraft because the FAA has not yet established powered-lift airworthiness standards as a separate part of subchapter C of 14 CFR. Under the procedures in § 21.17(b), the airworthiness requirements for special class aircraft are the portions of the requirements in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by the FAA to be appropriate and applicable to the specific type design and any other airworthiness criteria found by the FAA to provide an equivalent level of safety to the existing standards. These final airworthiness criteria announce the applicable regulations and other airworthiness criteria developed for type certification of the Model AW609 powered-lift under § 21.17(b).

The powered-lift has characteristics of both a rotorcraft and an airplane. It is designed to function as a helicopter for takeoff and landing, and as an airplane cruising at higher speeds than a helicopter during the enroute portion of flight operations. Accordingly, the Model AW609 certification basis contains standards from parts 23, 25, and 29, as well as other airworthiness criteria specific for a powered-lift.

This certification basis includes parts 23, 25, and 29 airworthiness standards. These are part 23 at amendment 23-62, part 25 at amendment 25-135 (except § 25.903(a) at amendment 25-140 and § 25.1517 at amendment 25-86), and part 29 at amendment 29-55 (except § 29.1353 at amendment 29-59). The certification basis incorporates by reference existing transport category airplane and rotorcraft standards, one normal category airplane standard, Category A rotorcraft standards, optional Category B rotorcraft standards, and criteria for operation under instrument flight rules. Flight into known icing conditions (FIKI) is not being sought with the current certification; however, FIKI is included in these airworthiness criteria for future certifications.

The certification basis also includes new criteria unique to the powered-lift design, designated as tiltrotor (TR) criteria. Many of these TR criteria consist of modified part 25 or 29 standards. Some include criteria that combine existing parts 23, 25, and 29 standards, as the maximum weight of the Model AW609 exceeds the weight for normal category rotorcraft and most part 23 category airplanes, but its passenger seating is less than that of a transport category airplane or a transport category rotorcraft. The FAA also developed TR criteria because no existing standard captures the powered-lift's transitional flight modes (during flight, the powered-lift nacelle rotates the proprotor system from providing vertical lift to horizontal propulsion). The TR criteria also contain definitions specific for the powered-lift, such as flight modes, configurations, speeds, and terminology (“flaperon” instead of “aileron” or “flap;” “proprotor” instead of “rotor” or “propeller”).

For example, while existing parts 25 and 29 standards for passenger emergency exits include a size classification (types I, II, III, IV) depending on the passenger seating capacity and other factors, the certification basis has a TR with criteria for the specific type of passenger emergency exit that is part of the design of the Model AW609. Another example involves fatigue evaluation. Part 25 contains requirements such as a limit of validity (LOV) on airframe fatigue for pressurized fuselages, which are not in part 29. Instead, fatigue evaluation in part 29 includes a composite structures fatigue rule, due to the more extreme fatigue environment of rotorcraft. For small airplanes, part 23, amendment 23-48, added a composite airframe evaluation requirement for bonded joints, which is included in agency compliance guidance for parts 25 and 29 but not required by a specific regulation (the safety requirement is complied with through other broad existing regulations in those parts). Since the Model AW609 has a pressurized fuselage, the FAA developed TR criteria to include the LOV requirement. The certification basis incorporates by reference the part 29 composite rotorcraft structures fatigue rule, TR criteria to include the composite bonding requirements from part 23, as well as TR criteria to include fatigue requirements for elastomeric primary structural elements. The new requirements specific to the AWPC Model AW609 in the proposed airworthiness criteria used a “TR.xxxx” section-numbering scheme.

Based on comments received, these final airworthiness criteria reflect the following changes, in addition to others as explained in more detail in the Discussion of Comments section:

• Added § 29.1547 to the final airworthiness criteria for the case where a magnetic compass is installed.

• Revised these final airworthiness criteria to provide clarification on future certification for FIKI conditions.

• Clarified statements about TR.45 applicability.

• Revised proposed TR.575 to account for the unique nature and operating environment of elastomeric principle structural elements (PSEs).

• Updated § 25.775 to clarify that the reference to § 25.335(a) is replaced with TR.335(a) for the purposes of these airworthiness criteria.

• Did not include § 25.875 and updated TR.875 in these final airworthiness criteria to prevent confusion between the terms propeller and proprotor, thereby combining proposed TR.875 and § 25.875, which call out requirements for buffeting, proprotor (propeller), and other rotating components. Accordingly, TR.875 in these final airworthiness criteria addresses both proposed TR.875 and § 25.875.

• Revised the incorporation by reference of § 29.1521 to reflect that the reference to § 29.1509(c) is replaced with TR.1509(c) since § 29.1509 is not part of the type certification basis for the Model AW609.

• Specified the amendment level for § 25.1517 to be 25-86.

• Revised these airworthiness criteria to remove § 25.1353 and include § 29.1353 at amendment 29-59 for electrical wiring protection due to recent amendments to part 29.

After the FAA issued the notice of proposed airworthiness criteria for public comment, AWPC presented a forward left and right position light design that would not meet the prescriptive regulatory requirements defined under §§ 29.1385-29.1395. In general terms, the existing requirements define the use of a single left and a single right forward-looking position light. Due to the AW609 configuration, AWPC proposed using multiple light sources for each forward position light providing lighting at a level comparable to the part 29 lighting requirements. The FAA developed TR.1385, TR.1387, TR.1389, TR.1391, TR.1393, and TR.1395 to establish the same level of safety to §§ 29.1385, 29.1387, 29.1389, 29.1391, 29.1393, and § 29.1395 to address the non-traditional configuration of the AW609 powered-lift's position lights. These TRs modified the language in certain part 29 sections to allow for a group of forward position lights to be installed on each side of the aircraft.

The FAA received responses from six commenters including: Overair, Inc (Overair), Parker Lord Corporation (Parker Lord), Advanced Air Mobility Institute, Transport Canada, and two individual commenters.

The FAA proposed criteria that adopted existing and developed definitions and abbreviations specifically for the Model AW609 powered-lift under subpart A. The FAA received and reviewed comments from Transport Canada and Overair regarding subpart A of the proposed airworthiness criteria.

Transport Canada requested the FAA revise TR.10(c) to use the phrase “flightdeck” instead of “cockpit” for consistency with TR.1322. The FAA concurs and has revised TR.10(c) to use the term “flightdeck.”

Transport Canada requested the FAA revise TR.11 by adding a statement that abbreviations in these criteria apply in addition to the abbreviations in 14 CFR 1.2. The FAA does not agree with Transport Canada's request because 14 CFR part 1.2 abbreviations are applicable unless specifically addressed as not being applicable in the certification basis.

Overair stated that “V MIN ” as defined in TR.11(c) and “minimum safe speed” as defined in other previously issued powered-lift special class airworthiness criteria would cause confusion between the two terms. The FAA disagrees with Overair. The airworthiness criteria for the AW609 are a special class certification basis and as such, the requirements are specific for this aircraft rather than generally applicable. In addition, the development of the AW609 certification basis predates the use of performance-based rules, which is the approach generally used for other special class powered-lift or similar aircraft.

The FAA proposed criteria that adopted existing regulations from subpart B of parts 23, 25, and 29, as well as developed criteria specifically for the Model AW609 powered-lift . Subpart B covers a wide range of flight criteria including performance, controllability, trim, stability, and stalls.

The FAA received and reviewed comments from Overair regarding subpart B of the proposed airworthiness criteria.

Overair requested the FAA clarify the safety intent of TR.45 related to the hovering ceiling given the differences in airworthiness criteria proposed for different powered-lift types. The FAA acknowledges Overair's request. TR.45 is general performance for Category A aircraft. The FAA developed these airworthiness criteria for the AW609 for guaranteed performance that would integrate all aircraft flight modes defined in TR.10 and HTR.45 including hover. TR Appendix H—Category B Performance defines Category B performance and HTR.45 addresses general performance determination.

Overair requested the FAA justify the climb performance identified in TR.67. Specifically, Overair requested the FAA explain why § 29.67(a)(1) was not adopted for the first takeoff segment and explain the rationale for adopting part 25 fixed-wing OEI minimum climb gradient criteria for this powered-lift special class aircraft. Finally, Overair inquired whether these performance requirements will provide the same level of safety when operating out of heliports and/or vertiports.

The FAA acknowledges Overair's comment. The FAA determined § 29.67(a)(1), which establishes climb performance at 200 ft, was inappropriate for a transport category powered-lift such as the AW609. In addition, the FAA did not adopt part 25 fixed-wing OEI climb requirements for the AW609. Rather, the FAA established different takeoff flight paths for ground-level heliports under TR.59 and elevated heliports under TR.60 that do not exist under part 25. The takeoff flight path under TR.59 and TR.69 utilizes the performance established under TR.67 to ensure positive engine out climb performance from the surface to 1500 ft above ground level, for different segments.

Overair requested the FAA clarify why a stall speed has been adopted for the AW609 as opposed to the “minimum safe speed” in other powered-lift special class airworthiness criteria. The FAA acknowledges Overair's comment. The AW609 is a § 21.17(b) special class certification basis aircraft and the airworthiness criteria are specific to this aircraft. Unlike other § 21.17(b) powered-lift, the AW609 certification basis did not use performance-based criteria. There are differences between performance-based and prescriptive criteria. Conversion-mode minimum safe speed is covered elsewhere in the AW609 airworthiness criteria; in the AW609 airworthiness criteria, airplane-mode (wing-borne) minimum safe speed is covered in TR.103, 201, 203, and 207. Conversion-mode (Semi-thrust borne) minimum safe speed is covered in TR.38 and 143. While the airworthiness criteria for the AW609 may be different from the airworthiness criteria for other powered-lift, the safety intent is the same with regards to stall and minimum speeds.

Overair requested the FAA explain why the wind velocity requirement, from all azimuths, has been increased from “at least 17 knots” in § 29.143(c) to 20 knots. The FAA acknowledges Overair's comment. The AW609, as a special class aircraft, is a transport category aircraft and its certification basis includes appropriate requirements from both parts 25 and 29. Section 25.237(a)(1) requires “a 90-degree cross component of wind velocity, demonstrated to be safe for takeoff and landing, . . . [that] must be at least 20 knots . . .” The FAA determined that § 29.143(c) and (d)'s requirements of at least 17 knots all azimuth capability could provide a controllability gap for the AW609 when attempting to land or takeoff; as such the FAA adopted 20 knots to maintain consistency with transport aircraft requirements for specific applicability to the AW609. This approach is consistent with the draft “Interim Airworthiness Criteria for Powered-Lift Transport Category Aircraft,” dated July 1988.

The FAA received several comments from Overair on the topics of flight performance and characteristics, and Overair requested an explanation as to why the FAA adopted older, non-performance-based criteria. The FAA establishes the minimum safety standards without dictating designs. Manufacturers are free to choose the design strategy that suits their powered-lift, as long as these designs meet a minimum accepted safety standard.

The FAA received multiple comments from Overair regarding the stability criteria proposed in TR.173 (static longitudinal stability), TR.175 (demonstration of static longitudinal stability), and TR.177 (static lateral-directional stability). Overair asked for clarification as to why proposed TR.173, TR.175, and TR.177 include stability requirements from the 1960's instead of using recent special conditions for part 25 aircraft equipped with a full-authority electronic flight control system. Overair requested the FAA incorporate more current airworthiness standards for fly-by-wire technology into the AW609 certification basis. The FAA does not concur with Overair's request to revise TR.173, TR.175, and TR.177 to incorporate recent special conditions for fly-by-wire technology. The recent fly-by-wire special conditions were considered in TR.173, TR.175, and TR.177. The commenter's assumption, that the recent special conditions were not considered for the TRs, is incorrect.

Overair also inquired as to why proposed TR.181(a)(1) and TR.181(a)(2) (free and fixed position dynamic stability criteria, respectively) were included in the airworthiness criteria for an aircraft equipped with an irreversible electronic flight control system. Overair requested the FAA not adopt proposed TR.181(a)(1) and TR.181(a)(2) in the final airworthiness criteria. The FAA does not concur with Overair's request to not adopt proposed TR.181(a)(1) and TR.181(a)(2) in the final airworthiness criteria. The FAA determined that evaluation of free and fixed flight control characteristics is necessary even if an aircraft has an irreversible electronic flight control system.

The FAA proposed criteria that adopted existing regulations from subpart C of parts 25 and 29, as well as developed criteria specifically for the AW609. Subpart C covers a wide range of strength criteria including flight loads, control surface loads, emergency landing conditions, and fatigue evaluations. The FAA received and reviewed comments from Parker Lord and one individual commenter.

Parker Lord requested the FAA revise the definition of a Primary Structural Element (PSE). Parker Lord also recommended the FAA change the qualification and certification of elastomeric PSEs from physical and static strength attributes to material functionality and the dynamic response within the design requirements of the rotor system. The FAA agrees with Parker Lord's requests and has revised the language in final TR.575 to use the designed dynamic response of the material as compliance criteria instead of traditional static loading, deformation, and fatigue for compliance criteria.

An individual commenter suggested the AW609 may become unstable in a windmilling condition and may develop whirl flutter. The commenter stated the aircraft should be tested for stability in this situation and if necessary given procedures and limitations. The commenter also stated that if the system design prevents windmilling, there should be backup systems and procedures. FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. Windmilling impact on aircraft stability, including any impact on whirl flutter, is already evaluated under § 25.629 and TR.629, therefore, no additional changes are deemed necessary to those airworthiness criteria.

The FAA proposed criteria that adopted existing regulations from subpart D of parts 25 and 29, as well as developed criteria specifically for the Model AW609 powered-lift. Subpart D covers a wide range of design and construction criteria including criteria covering rotors, control systems, landing gear, and personnel and cargo accommodations.

The FAA received and reviewed comments from Overair and Transport Canada regarding subpart D of the proposed airworthiness criteria.

Transport Canada requested the FAA specify which paragraphs of § 25.335 and TR.335 the FAA is referring to in the reference to § 25.775 in the proposed airworthiness criteria. The FAA has revised the reference to § 25.775 in the final airworthiness criteria to indicate that § 25.335(a) is replaced with TR.335(a).

Transport Canada requested the FAA add § 25.865 to the final airworthiness criteria because that regulation addresses fire protection requirements for the engine mounting structure and engine attachment points. The FAA does not agree with Transport Canada's request. Section 29.861(a) is included in the final airworthiness criteria, and uses the term “structure,” which includes engine mounts as indicated by the example in the guidance material of AC 29.861. As a result, compliance with § 29.861(a) must also address engine mounting structure and engine attachment points. Applying § 29.861(a) is sufficient for this powered-lift, and requiring compliance to § 25.865 is not necessary. AC 29-2C “Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft” and AC 29.861 “Fire Protection of Structure, Controls, and Other Parts” provide guidance for engine mounts and fire protection requirements.

Transport Canada stated that § 25.867 does not define clearly what surfaces to consider as “rear of the nacelles” and requested the FAA clarify the intent with a figure to define the envelope and boundaries radially and axially. The FAA does not agree with Transport Canada's request to provide a figure as this figure is defined in the project specific methods of compliance to § 25.867.

Transport Canada requested a rationalization of the FAA's exception of § 25.869(a)(3) from the proposed airworthiness criteria and requested the FAA include § 25.869(a)(3) in the final airworthiness criteria. Additionally, the commenter provided wording for § 25.869(a)(3) from amendment 25-113 even though the current amendment is 25-123, which has different language. The FAA does not concur with Transport Canada's request to include § 25.869(a)(3) at either amendment level in the final airworthiness criteria as the airworthiness criteria already contain criteria such as § 29.1301, TR.1309, and § 29.1353 that are intended to address the same requirements as those covered by the various part 25 wiring and EWIS requirements, including § 25.869(a)(3).

Overair commented that the inclusion of both § 25.675(a) and § 29.675(a) in the proposed airworthiness criteria was confusing and requested the FAA not make § 25.675(a) applicable to the AW609 because § 29.675(a) is also applicable. The FAA does not concur with this request. Both regulations need to be included in the final airworthiness criteria because the AW609 operates in both helicopter and airplane modes including the conversion mode. The AW609 aircraft control is affected by rotor collective and cyclic pitch, conventional airplane control surfaces (elevator, flaperons), and nacelle tilt; traditional helicopter-type pilot controls in the cockpit provide aircraft control in pitch, roll, and yaw axes.

Overair requested the FAA not adopt § 25.875 from the proposed airworthiness criteria and reword TR.875 to prevent confusion. The FAA concurs with this request and has revised the final airworthiness criteria to not adopt § 25.875 and reworded TR.875 to reflect the use of “proprotors” instead and of propellers to reflect TR.10(o) terminology.

The FAA proposed criteria that adopted existing regulations from subpart E of parts 25 and 29, as well as developed criteria specifically for the Model AW609 powered-lift. Subpart E covers a wide range of powerplant criteria including rotor drive systems, fuel systems, oil systems, and cooling and exhaust systems. The FAA received and reviewed comments from Transport Canada and one individual commenter regarding subpart E of the proposed airworthiness criteria.

Transport Canada requested the FAA revise proposed TR.963 to remove the phrase “for compliance with” and replace it with “in addition to.” FAA does not concur with Transport Canada's request. The requested change would increase the testing requirements for flexible fuel tank bladders in a way that is not intended.

Transport Canada requested the FAA rationalize the exception of § 25.1203(h) from the proposed airworthiness criteria and to include § 25.1203(h) in the final airworthiness criteria. The FAA does not concur with the request to include § 25.1203(h) in the final airworthiness criteria as the airworthiness criteria already contain criteria such as § 29.1301, TR.1309, and § 29.1353 that are intended to address similar requirements as those covered by the various part 25 EWIS requirements, including § 25.1203(h).

The FAA received several comments with no specific requested changes to the proposed airworthiness criteria from an individual on several aspects regarding FIKI, icing protection, and inadvertent icing encounters.

The commenter inquired as to whether the AW609 has any relief from the subpart E powerplant-related requirements of normal FIKI certification other than having no subpart B testing with ice shapes and the relief of limited exposure time. The commenter also inquired as to whether the flight manual limitation that “the pilot is prohibited from flight into known or forecast icing” reduces or eliminates any of the other subpart E requirements for the AW609 that are normally included in a FIKI certification. The FAA acknowledges the commenter's questions: the powerplant icing requirements are applicable per TR.1093, regardless of the aircraft's FIKI status.

The FAA proposed criteria that adopted existing regulations from subpart G of parts 25 and 29, as well as developed criteria specifically for the Model AW609 powered-lift. Subpart G covers a wide range of operating limitations and information criteria including airspeed, markings and placards, indicators, and flight manuals. The FAA received and reviewed comments from Transport Canada regarding subpart G of the proposed airworthiness criteria.

Transport Canada requested the FAA revise the reference to § 25.1585(a)(8) in § 25.1517 to read “§ 25.1585(a)(3)” and explained that § 25.1585(a)(8) does not exist.” The FAA acknowledges Transport Canada's request; however, the reference to § 25.1585(a)(8) is correct. The FAA revised the final airworthiness criteria to indicate that the criteria includes § 25.1517, Rough air speed, V RA is at amendment 25-86, which contains (a)(8).

Transport Canada requested the FAA revise the reference to § 29.1509 and TR.1509 in § 29.1521 to include the appropriate paragraphs. The FAA concurs and revised the reference to § 29.1509 and TR.1509 to indicate that paragraph (c) is the appropriate paragraph.

Transport Canada requested the FAA add “§ 29.1547 Magnetic direction indicator. (a)-(d) [Applicable to AW609]” to the airworthiness criteria and, if the FAA agrees, then also add a reference to § 29.1547 in TR.1501(b). The FAA concurs with adding § 29.1547 to these final airworthiness criteria and notes that § 29.1327 is the requirement for a magnetic compass and § 29.1547 is the requirement for a calibration card if a compass is installed. In lieu of a magnetic compass, § 25.1303 and TR.1303 allow for direction indicators (gyroscopically stabilized, magnetic or non-magnetic).

The FAA received comments on the proposed criteria that were not specific to any subpart from The Advanced Air Mobility Institute, Transport Canada, and one individual commenter.

Transport Canada made several comments concerning the structure and formatting of the airworthiness criteria document. Transport Canada further stated that the airworthiness criteria as written references many requirements instead of writing the actual text for the airworthiness criteria. Transport Canada suggested the FAA write the actual text for airworthiness criteria throughout the document to make explicit the text agreed to when these airworthiness criteria are finalized. The FAA disagrees, because the 14 CFR regulations listed in the airworthiness criteria for the AW609 are incorporated into the criteria by referencing the existing rule.

Transport Canada stated that the formula in proposed TR.725 Limit drop test, paragraph (d), is incomplete. The FAA disagrees with Transport Canada. The formula is correctly stated in the proposed criteria, and matches the formula suggested by the commenter.

Transport Canada stated the heading for proposed TR.103 Stall SPEED is incorrect and that the term “SPEED” should be lower case and in bold text. The FAA agrees with Transport Canada and has corrected the heading in TR.103 in the final airworthiness criteria.

Transport Canada requested the FAA explain why §§ 25.1701-25.1733 for an EWIS were not included in the proposed airworthiness criteria and requested the FAA add §§ 25.1701-25.1733. The FAA does not concur with Transport Canada's request to include §§ 25.170-25.1753 in the final airworthiness criteria as the FAA updated the final airworthiness criteria to replace § 25.1353 with § 29.1353 due to the recent addition of amendment 29-59 which introduced a part 29 safety target for electrical wiring. The final airworthiness criteria also contain § 29.1301, and TR.1309 which, in addition to § 29.1353, address similar requirements to those covered by the referenced part 25 EWIS and energy storage requirements.

Transport Canada requested the FAA clarify whether part 34, Fuel Venting and Exhaust Emission Requirements For Turbine Engine Powered Airplanes, is applicable to the AW609, either to the engine or aircraft, as fuel venting can be influenced by the engine's installation effects. The FAA acknowledges Transport Canada's concern. The AW609 uses the PT6C-67A, which is a turboshaft engine. Part 34 does not apply to turboshaft engines. As long as the AW609 continues to use a turboshaft engine, part 34 will not be applicable.

Transport Canada requested the FAA clarify whether part 38, Airplane Fuel Efficiency Certification is applicable to the AW609. The AW609 certification basis precedes the promulgation of 14 CFR part 38, and thus part 38 is not applicable to the AW609.

The Advanced Air Mobility Institute recommended the FAA update and expand the airworthiness criteria for the Model AW609 powered-lift to require the implementation of a mandatory safety management system (SMS), designated as TR criteria. The FAA does acknowledge the value of implementation of a proactive SMS system. However, implementation of SMS is beyond the scope of this present effort to designate the applicable airworthiness criteria for this powered-lift.

These airworthiness criteria, established under the provisions of § 21.17(b), are applicable to the AWPC Model AW609 powered-lift. Should AWPC apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model, these airworthiness criteria would apply to that model as well, provided the FAA finds them appropriate in accordance with the requirements of subpart D to part 21.

This action affects only certain airworthiness criteria for the AWPC Model AW609 powered-lift. It is not a standard of general applicability.

The authority citation for these airworthiness criteria is as follows:

Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following airworthiness criteria are issued as part of the type certification basis for the AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation Model AW609 powered-lift. You may view the final airworthiness criteria on the internet at www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2022-1726.

The FAA received reports of an accident involving an Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B2 helicopter impacting a body of water during an autorotation. Both the left and right-hand emergency floats did not inflate symmetrically, and the helicopter subsequently capsized.

Accordingly, the FAA issued AD 2020-02-23, Amendment 39-21027 (85 FR 8150, February 13, 2020) (AD 2020-02-23), for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, and AS350D1 helicopters modified by STC SR00470LA, and Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters modified by STC SR00645LA. AD 2020-02-23 requires repetitive inspections of the installation of the cables on the emergency float kits. After AD 2020-02-23 was issued, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that similar deficiencies may remain unresolved in other similar FAA-approved emergency flotation systems. 1

Accordingly, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various helicopters modified by certain STCs that approve the installation of an emergency float kit or an emergency float with a liferaft kit. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2024 (89 FR 31659). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitively inspecting the installation of the cables on certain emergency float systems and, depending on the results, repairing the cable installation or, deactivating and placarding the emergency float system as inoperative. For specific helicopters, the FAA also proposed to require removing from service and replacing certain part-numbered reservoirs and cables with other part-numbered reservoirs and cables. Additionally, the FAA proposed to prohibit installing certain part-numbered reservoirs and cables on certain helicopters. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received a comment on the NPRM from the NTSB. The NTSB supported the NPRM without change.

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

The FAA reviewed DART Aerospace Operation Instructional Manual for General Pull Cable Rigging and Testing Procedure, Revision B, dated May 12, 2023. This material specifies procedures for testing the pull cable rigging on the DART Aerospace emergency float and liferaft systems using certain part-numbered pull cable test tools.

The FAA also reviewed DART Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB2020-09, Revision A, dated March 16, 2021, DART Aerospace SB No. SB2021-01, Revision A, dated December 28, 2021, DART Aerospace SB No. SB2021-02, dated April 30, 2021, DART Aerospace SB No. SB2021-03, dated June 30, 2021, and DART Aerospace SB No. SB2022-01, dated March 14, 2022. This material specifies procedures for inspecting the installation of the cable emergency float kits ( e.g., inspecting for activation pull forces on the float activation handle), readjusting the cable rigging if improperly installed, and contacting DART if readjusting the rigging is not successful. This material also specifies optional procedures for deactivating the emergency float system as inoperative and reporting compliance to DART.

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 reviewed DART Aerospace SB No. SB 2022-03, dated May 12, 2023, for Model R44 and R44 II helicopters, which specifies procedures for removing and replacing certain part-numbered reservoirs and cables with new part-numbered reservoirs and cables. This material also specifies procedures for revising the rotorcraft flight manual and recording compliance with the material in the aircraft logbook.

The related material specifies a one-time pull cable test, whereas this AD requires repetitively inspecting the pull force on the float activation handle.

Where the related material specifies contacting DART, this AD requires actions in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.

Appendix A of the related material specifies to ty-wrap the pin into place on the pilot collective and to contact DART customer service for a resolution, whereas this AD requires accomplishing corrective actions in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,150 emergency float kits or emergency float with liferaft kits installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Inspecting the pull force on the float activation handle will take 1 work-hour with one test kit costing $2,000 for an estimated cost of $2,085 per helicopter and $2,397,750 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

Replacing a reservoir and cable (Model R44 and R44 II helicopters) will take 2 work-hours and parts will cost $5,800 for an estimated cost of $5,970 per helicopter.

The FAA has no way of determining what repairs may be required following the inspection required by this AD, the number of helicopters that may need repairs, or the costs to perform repairs. However, if required as a repair, replacing and adjusting an affected cable will take 8 work-hours and parts will cost $255 for an estimated total cost of $935 per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Lycoming model engines that have certain connecting rod assemblies installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 53911). The NPRM was prompted by several reports of connecting rod failures, which resulted in uncontained engine failure and IFSDs, and a manufacturer investigation where it was determined that affected connecting rod small end bushings may be installed on additional populations of Lycoming engines. The manufacturer also determined that degradation of the connecting rod small end bushings is detectable during oil change inspections. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive oil inspections for bronze metal particulates and, if found, additional inspections of the connecting rod bushings for damage ( e.g. deterioration, missing metal), proper fit, movement, and wear, and replacement if necessary. As terminating action to the connecting rod bushing inspections, the NPRM also proposed to require replacement of the connecting rod bushings with parts eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received one comment from Aeroclub de Columbia. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Aeroclub de Columbia requested that the FAA confirm whether the recurrent inspections required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD should also be scheduled monthly for aircraft in 14 CFR part 91 (non-commercial) operations. Aeroclub de Columbia noted that Lycoming Service Bulletin 480F suggests changing the oil every 50 hours or every 4 months, but several aircraft maintenance manuals specify oil replacement every 50 hours without a calendar time restriction.

To clarify, this AD does not define or mandate the frequency of oil changes after the initial oil change. Subsequent oil changes are part of the engine's regular maintenance program, therefore the recurring frequency is outside the scope of this AD. Although repetitive inspections are required during this regular maintenance interval, they are tied to the operator's oil change frequency and that frequency is not being defined by this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 630A, dated June 13, 2017, which specifies procedures for inspection of the connecting rod bushings for damage, proper fit, movement, and wear. 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 16,000 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), 1 and in accordance with the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), 2 the electronic inspection of Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWICs) is required inside secure areas on certain vessels and facilities in the United States. Specifically, the SAFE Port Act requires that the Secretary put into effect regulations that require the deployment of electronic transportation security card readers. 3 To implement this requirement in an effective manner, the Coast Guard initiated a series of regulatory actions, updating its facility and vessel plan requirements based on 46 U.S.C. 70103, to implement electronic TWIC inspections at certain high-risk vessels and facilities regulated under MTSA. 4

On May 22, 2006, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License” (“2006 NPRM”). 5 After considering comments on the 2006 NPRM, the Coast Guard and TSA published the final rule on January 25, 2007, also titled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License” (“2007 final rule”). 6 The 2007 final rule mandated that all persons allowed unescorted access to secure areas in MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities were required to possess a TWIC card. The rule did not mandate that a TWIC card be read with an electronic reader. The card could be verified by visual inspection alone, without making use of the electronic security features built into the card.

Although the 2006 NPRM proposed certain TWIC reader requirements, after reviewing the public comments, the Coast Guard and TSA decided not to include those proposed requirements in the 2007 final rule. Instead, we addressed them in a separate rulemaking, discussed below, and conducted a pilot program to address the feasibility of reader requirements before issuing another final rule. For a detailed discussion of the public comments to the 2006 NPRM, and our responses to them, please refer to the 2007 final rule.

On March 27, 2009, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the topic of TWIC reader requirements, “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)-Reader Requirements.”  7 The ANPRM discussed dividing vessels and facilities into three “risk groups”—Risk Group A for high-risk vessels and facilities, Risk Group B for medium-risk vessels and facilities, and Risk Group C for low-risk vessels and facilities. The ANPRM also considered different electronic inspection requirements for Risk Groups A and B, and no electronic inspection requirements for Risk Group C.

On March 22, 2013, we published an NPRM, “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)-Reader Requirements”  8 that proposed the three risk groups (A, B, and C), but limited the proposed electronic TWIC inspection requirements to Risk Group A vessels and facilities only.

On August 23, 2016, we published a final rule titled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)—Reader Requirements”  9 (“2016 TWIC Reader final rule”) that eliminated the three risk group structure and required that high-risk vessels and facilities (still referred to as Risk Group A) conduct electronic TWIC inspections for all personnel seeking unescorted access to secure areas of the vessel or facility. Risk Group A vessels and facilities are defined in title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §§ 104.263, 105.253, and 106.258.

Congress also passed several laws that impacted implementation of the TWIC reader program. On December 16, 2016, the President signed the bill titled “Transportation Security Card Program Assessment.”  10 This law required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to commission a report reviewing the security value of the TWIC program by (1) evaluating the extent to which the TWIC program addresses known or likely security risks in the maritime and port environments; (2) evaluating the potential for a non-biometric credential alternative; (3) identifying the technology, business process, and operational impact of the TWIC card and readers in maritime and port environments; (4) assessing the costs and benefits of the TWIC program, as implemented; and (5) evaluating the extent to which DHS has addressed the deficiencies of the TWIC program previously identified by the Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of the Inspector General.

On May 15, 2017, the Coast Guard received a petition for rulemaking requesting that it revise the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule and impose electronic TWIC inspection requirements on only those vessels and facilities that engage in the maritime transfer of certain dangerous cargoes (CDC). 11

On June 22, 2018, we published a second NPRM, “TWIC-Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date”, 12 which proposed delaying the implementation of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule until August 23, 2021, for two categories of facilities: (1) facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but do not transfer these cargoes from or to a vessel; and (2) facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk, but do not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer these bulk cargoes from or to those vessels.

On August 2, 2018, the President signed the “Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018,”  13 which prohibited the Coast Guard from implementing the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule until at least 60 days after the Coast Guard submits the report on the security value of the TWIC program to Congress, as required by the 2016 bill, “Transportation Security Card Program Assessment.”  14

On March 9, 2020, the Coast Guard published a final rule titled “TWIC-Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date”  15 (“2020 TWIC Reader Delay final rule”). The 2020 TWIC Reader Delay final rule extended the effective date of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule, only for Risk Group A facilities that handle CDC in bulk, until May 8, 2023. 16 The implementation date for facilities designated as Risk Group A, because they receive vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers, remained unchanged. The 2016 TWIC Reader final rule was implemented on June 8, 2020. However, the Coast Guard delayed enforcing this regulation until January 1, 2022, because of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2020, the Coast Guard commissioned the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC)—operated by the RAND Corporation—to conduct an analysis. The purpose of the analysis was to (1) identify the population of facilities handling CDC impacted by the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule; (2) develop a risk-consequence analysis for these facilities; and (3) conduct a benefit-cost analysis based on the information collected and analyzed during this subsequent study. The Coast Guard received the RAND Corporation's analysis on July 29, 2022, and is currently evaluating the options for implementing the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule. The 2022 RAND Corporation's analysis is included in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

While we evaluate the HSOAC analysis, the Coast Guard is continuing to delay the original rule's implementation with this final rule to avoid the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule going into effect. We are delaying that rule's implementation for three categories of facilities: (1) facilities that handle CDC in bulk but do not transfer those cargoes from or to a vessel; (2) facilities that handle CDC in bulk and do transfer those cargoes from or to a vessel; and (3) facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk, but do not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer those bulk cargoes from or to those vessels—to May 8, 2029, to avoid creating confusion and conflicts between the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule's original requirements and the potential outcomes of the study. The 2016 TWIC Reader final rule remains in effect for facilities receiving vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers. This final rule does not affect those facilities.

On December 23, 2022, Congress enacted the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (“2023 Authorization Act”). 17 Section 11804 of the 2023 Authorization Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to not implement TWIC reader regulations for “covered facilities” before May 8, 2026. The 2023 Authorization Act identifies covered facilities as facilities that (1) handle CDC in bulk and transfer such cargoes from or to a vessel; (2) handle CDC in bulk but do not transfer it from or to a vessel; and (3) receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer it from or to the vessel. These three categories are identical to the facilities identified in 33 CFR 105.253(a)(2) through (4).

Two weeks before the 2023 Authorization Act was enacted, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)-Reader Requirements; Second Delay of Effective Date.” (“2022 Second Reader Delay NPRM”)  18 In it, we proposed to change the implementation dates for the categories in § 105.253(a)(2) through (4) to May 8, 2026, and requested comments on whether we should extend the date as late as May 8, 2029.

On April 17, 2023, consistent with the 2023 Authorization Act, the Coast Guard published the “Transportation Worker Identification Credential—Facility Reader Requirement; Conforming Amendment” (“2023 Conforming Amendment”), which changed the implementation dates in 33 CFR 105.253(a)(2) through (4) from May 8, 2023, to May 8, 2026. 19 The 2023 Conforming Amendment aligned Coast Guard regulations with the Congressionally mandated minimum delay for implementation of TWIC readers for the covered facilities.

The 2016 TWIC Reader final rule established electronic TWIC reader regulations for certain high-risk vessels and MTSA-regulated facilities. Shortly after the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule was published, the chemical industry expressed concern that the final rule significantly expanded the scope of the 2013 NPRM for that rulemaking  20 and requested that the Coast Guard narrow the classes of chemical facilities that would be subject to the enhanced security requirements. An industry association representing terminal companies nationwide then sued DHS in 2017, claiming that the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act. 21 The court dismissed the action, holding that the issue was not ripe for adjudication, because Congress passed legislation delaying the implementation of the final rule, and there was a likelihood that Congress or the Coast Guard might amend or replace the regulation. 22

In June 2020, DHS published the Coast Guard's corrective action plan (CAP) titled “Corrective Action Plan from the Assessment of the Risk Mitigation Value of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential.”  23 The CAP identified the need to conduct a risk analysis over the next 3 years to identify all facilities handling CDC and to analyze the need for TWIC readers.

In September 2020, the Coast Guard commissioned the HSOAC, operated by the RAND Corporation, to conduct an analysis to identify the population of facilities handling CDC impacted by the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule, develop a risk-consequence analysis for these facilities, and conduct a benefit-cost analysis.

In response to the 2023 Authorization Act mandate discussed previously, the Coast Guard published the 2023 Conforming Amendment on April 17, 2023, which changed the implementation dates in 33 CFR 105.253(a)(2) through (4) from May 8, 2023, to May 8, 2026. 24

In response to the 2022 Second Reader Delay NPRM, which proposed a delay of 3, 4, 5, or 6 years, the Coast Guard received five public comments, two of which were duplicate submissions. 25 All commenters supported the Coast Guard's proposal to delay the implementation of the TWIC reader rule. Additionally, all commenters generally supported a delay of 6 years.

All comments the Coast Guard received mentioned the 2022 RAND Corporation's HSOAC analysis, titled “Risk-Informed Analysis of Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Requirements,” and either raised concerns or agreed with the conclusions found in the analysis.

The Coast Guard acknowledges receipt of the HSOAC analysis and appreciates the work that was performed to assemble the report. However, at present, we are not able to comment on the analysis, as we continue to evaluate its findings and recommendations.

While all commenters generally supported a delay of up to 6 years, one commenter thought the current 3-year delay could potentially be sufficient for the Coast Guard to review the RAND study, receive additional stakeholder input, and promulgate a new TWIC rule consistent with the new data. That commenter raised concerns about the uncertainty that a lengthy delay may cause for industry, particularly for vendors involved in the production and maintenance of TWIC readers. Two commenters also suggested areas for further study, including on the potential costs of implementing TWIC readers, and proposed several ways of amending the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule in light of the RAND study findings. While we recognize the industry's need for regulatory certainty and clarity, we believe that the delay to May 8, 2029, although potentially lengthening a period of uncertainty, is for the valid purpose of providing time to determine the best course of action with regard to the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule.

In this final rule (also referred to as the “2023 TWIC Reader Delay rule”), we delay the effective date for certain facilities to May 8, 2029. The 2016 TWIC Reader final rule remains in effect for facilities receiving vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers, as this final rule does not affect those facilities.

This final rule delays implementing TWIC readers for (1) facilities that handle CDC in bulk but do not transfer those cargoes from or to a vessel; (2) facilities that handle CDC in bulk and do transfer those cargoes from or to a vessel; and (3) facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk, but do not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer those bulk cargoes from or to those vessels. This delay allows the Coast Guard to accurately determine the affected population through the 2022 RAND Corporation's HSOAC analysis and have further time to analyze the potential effectiveness of the TWIC reader requirement for these facilities. The HSOAC analysis assesses potential risks of CDC, including the types of CDC, population density within a certain distance of the facility, and other risk and consequence aspects.

After the Coast Guard completes its review of the HSOAC analysis, its conclusions, and its recommendations, we will determine whether any future rulemaking regarding the effective date of the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule is necessary. If such a rulemaking begins, industry will be able to provide further input through notice and comment rulemaking.

This final rule further delays the effective date for three types of facilities affected by the 2016 TWIC Reader final rule. Specifically, these are (1) facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but do not transfer those cargoes from or to a vessel; (2) facilities that handle CDC in bulk and do transfer those cargoes from or to a vessel; and (3) facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk, but do not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer those bulk cargoes from or to those vessels. Currently, the effective date for these facilities is May 8, 2026.

Below, we provide an updated regulatory analysis of the 2020 TWIC Reader Delay final rule that presents the impacts of delaying the effective date of the final rule for the three types of Risk Group A facilities defined in the preceding paragraph. For this updated analysis, we estimated the costs of this 2023 final rule, the costs of the 2023 Conforming Amendment, and the 2020 TWIC Reader Delay final rule, utilizing a 13-year analysis period in order to compare them to derive the cost savings for our baselines.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and affirmed by Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

This final rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, but it is not significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this final rule. A Regulatory Analysis (RA) follows.

On the 17th of April 2023, the Coast Guard published the 2023 Conforming Amendment, altering the implementation date for TWIC readers in certain risk group A facilities from May 8, 2023, to May 8, 2026. 26 This final rule replaces the 2023 Conforming Amendment, which is currently in effect, and thus delays implementation until May 8, 2029. In order to provide a comprehensive estimate of the impacts of this rulemaking, the Coast Guard utilizes two baselines, a “Pre-Conforming Amendment” (“Pre-CA”) baseline and a “No Action” baseline.

The No Action baseline represents the current state without this rulemaking in other words a world in which the requirements would go into effect in 2025. Quantifying costs against the No Action baseline includes only costs directly attributable to this rule and excludes any costs derived from the 2023 Conforming Amendment. The period of impact for costs for the No Action baseline is 2025 to 2034, and any change in cost or cost savings can be attributed to the difference between the expiration of the 2023 Conforming Amendment and this final rule.

The Pre-CA baseline captures costs across two different time horizons. First, it provides transparency regarding cost savings realized from 2022 to 2025 due to the 2023 Conforming Amendment. Second, it captures new cost savings between 2025 to 2034 that stem from this final rule. The entire period of impact for the Pre-CA baseline is 2022 to 2034. We compare the costs attributed to this baseline to the costs under the 2020 TWIC Reader Delay final rule, resulting in the outlined cost savings. We use an aligned period of analysis across both the No Action and Pre-CA baselines to provide a consistent comparison for our estimates. Therefore, the period of analysis for each baseline in our RA is 2022 to 2034. See Illustration 1 for a depiction of our baselines, periods of impact, and period of analysis.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard was recently notified that the number of expected participants in this event increased, raising the need for public safety to be mitigated with a safety zone for the event. We must establish the safety zone by November 01, 2024, and lack sufficient time to provide for a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Juan (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the anticipated increase of participants at the regatta event will be a safety concern for persons and vessels in the regulated area. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of the event participants, the general public, vessels and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the regatta event.

This rule establishes a safety zone on certain waters of Bahia de Ponce, PR from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. daily on November 01, 2024, through November 11, 2024, during the regatta event. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Bahia de Ponce within the following points beginning at Point 1 at 17°58′17.05″ N, −66°37′28.42″ W, thence north to Point 2 at 17°58′36.69″ N, −66°37′25.53″ W, thence west to Point 3 at 17°58′34.22″ N, −66°39′6.06″ W, thence southwest to Point 4 at 17°58′19.80″ N, −66°39′16.43″ W, and along the shoreline back to the beginning Point 1 for the Race Area 1. Race Area 2 encompass a 1,200 yards radius from 17°57′2.56″ N, −66°36′56.99″ W.

No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or by on-scene designated representatives.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on following reasons: (1) The temporary safety zone will only be enforced for a total of 6 hours per day, for 10 consecutive days; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the areas during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA is amending its regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 1, 21, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 147, 374, 707, and 763, to reflect a change in the mailing address for EPA's Region 4 office. This technical amendment merely updates and corrects the address for the Region 4 office and does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. 1

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), EPA has found that the public notice and comment provisions of the APA, found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply to this rulemaking. Public notice and comment is unnecessary because this amendment to the regulations provides only technical changes to update addresses and organization names. EPA has also determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the rule's effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) in order to expedite the public's access to the correct address and organization names of EPA Region 4.

This final rule implements technical amendments to 40 CFR parts 1, 21, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 147, 374, 707, and 763 to reflect a change in address of EPA's Region 4 office. It does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. 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 does not concern an environmental health or safety risk;

• 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 this technical correction does not involve technical standards.

In addition, this action does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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.” EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. 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).

Therefore, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

EPA is approving changes to Mississippi's SIP submitted by the State on February 28, 2024. The changes include revising the State's new source review (NSR) permitting regulations at 11 Mississippi Administrative Code (MAC), Part 2, Chapter 2, Permit Regulations for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment (Chapter 2) and PSD permitting regulations at 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 5, Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (Chapter 5) to adopt relevant federal permitting regulations into the SIP. The PSD permitting changes at Chapter 5 amend MDEQ's incorporate by reference (IBR) date of the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(f) and 40 CFR 52.21 to December 27, 2023. EPA's approval of the December 27, 2023, IBR date at Chapter 5, Rule 5.2 adopts into the SIP changes to 40 CFR 52.21 that EPA promulgated in several rulemakings since Mississippi's last IBR update of February 17, 2016. These rulemakings include: “Source Determination for Certain Emission Units in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector” 81 FR 35622 (June 3, 2016); “Rescission of Preconstruction Permits Issued under the Clean Air Act” 81 FR 78043 (November 7, 2016); “Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter” 82 FR 5182 (January 17, 2017)  1 at; “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Project Emissions Accounting” 85 FR 74890 (November 24, 2020); and “New Source Review Errors Correction” 86 FR 37918 (July 19, 2021). The SIP revision also amends Mississippi's SIP-approved PSD rules to adopt public participation e-notice provisions consistent with EPA's October 5, 2016, rule “Revisions to Public Notice Provisions in Clean Air Act Permitting Programs”. 2 The modeling updates at Chapter 2 and 5 respecting references to Appendix W in 40 CFR 52.21(l) support the state's request to convert EPA's March 1, 2023, conditional approval of the PSD requirements of elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) (Prong 3), and (J), and the air quality modeling element under section 110(a)(2)(K), of Mississippi's 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP (iSIP)  3 to a full approval. 4 The SIP revision also includes minor changes to Mississippi's PSD regulations at Chapter 2  5 and Chapter 5. The February 28, 2024, SIP submission provides additional changes to 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 2 to address NSR requirements, as well as minor grammatical errors which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

Through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 16, 2024 (89 FR 75517), EPA proposed to approve the changes to 11 MAC Part 2, Chapter 2, Rules 2.5B(1) and B(2), Application Review; 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 5, Rule 5.1, Purpose of this regulation; Rule 5.2, Adoption of Federal Rules by Reference; Rule 5.3, Definition of term “Administrator”; Rule 5.4, Adoption of Federal Rules for Exclusions from Increment Consumption; Rule 5.6 Applicability; and Rule 5.7, Public Participation into Mississippi's SIP and to convert the conditional approval of the portions of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS iSIP that address the PSD related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J), and the modeling requirements of 110(a)(2)(K) to a full approval. 6 The contents of Mississippi's submission, EPA's rationale for approving the changes, and EPA's rationale for converting the conditional approval action to full approval, are described in more detail in the September 16, 2024, NPRM. Comments on the September 16, 2024, NPRM were due on or before October 16, 2024. EPA received one comment on the September 16, 2024, NPRM. The comment is available in the docket for this action.

EPA received one comment on the August 16, 2024, NPRM. EPA has summarized and responded to the comment below.

Comment: The Commenter expressed support for the proposed changes to Mississippi's SIP-approved PSD permitting program to align with federal air pollution control guidelines, specifically those in Appendix W. The Commenter emphasized the importance of using the best tools available to monitor air quality and reduce pollutants like ozone. However, the Commenter expressed concerns about the potential financial strain these changes might impose on smaller business. The Commenter suggested that measures such as extending deadlines or providing financial support could help these businesses so they can comply without struggling.

Response: EPA appreciates the Commenter's support for this action. The Commenter also raised concerns about the potential burden the changes may place on smaller businesses, suggesting additional time for compliance or financial support so they can follow the rules without struggling. Due to the general nature of the Commenter's requests and suggestions, EPA is only able to provide general responses.

While EPA sets the NAAQS, states play a primary role in implementation. The CAA establishes a system of cooperative federalism that sets specific roles for EPA and the states. In this system, EPA provides national leadership and sets national standards for environmental protection, such as the NAAQS. 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 the 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, including a requirement to adopt a PSD program. 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.

Regarding the Commenter's suggestion to allow small businesses additional time to meet the rules, as explained above, EPA's role is focused on reviewing the submission to determine whether it meets the minimum criteria of the CAA and must approve submissions that do. As such, EPA cannot unilaterally adopt a different deadline for compliance with the State's PSD rules if they conform to the CAA requirements. As explained above and in the NPRM, Mississippi is updating its incorporation date for the federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21 from February 17, 2016, to December 27, 2023. 7 The changes to the State's SIP are consistent with changes to the federal PSD rules that occurred between February 17, 2016, and December 27, 2023, and therefore conform to CAA PSD regulations.

The Commenter states that small businesses might have a hard time paying for the changes needed to follow these new rules, and suggests helping these businesses by offering financial support so they can follow the rules without struggling. As noted above, the CAA delegates to states the primary role in implementation through SIPs to attain and maintain each NAAQS. EPA appreciates the concerns the Commenter expressed regarding compliance by smaller businesses. EPA notes that the changes to Mississippi's PSD program do not change the universe of sources subject to preconstruction review under the program. EPA also notes that the PSD regulations have required the use of Appendix W modeling guidelines for decades, and that the Agency emphasized that air quality modeling should utilize the most advanced practical technology that is available at a reasonable cost to users when adopting the 2017 revisions to Appendix W. See 82 FR 5182, 5185 (January 17, 2017).

Therefore, while EPA has considered this feedback on the proposed rule, EPA has determined that the proposed SIP revision is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and is not altering its decision to proceed with the finalization of this action. Consequently, EPA is approving this revision to the Mississippi's SIP.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Mississippi Rules 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 2, Rules 2.5B(1) and B(2), Application Review;   8 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 5, Rule 5.1, Purpose of this regulation; Rule 5.2, Adoption of Federal Rules by Reference;   9 Rule 5.3, Definition of term “Administrator”; Rule 5.4, Adoption of Federal Rules for Exclusions from Increment Consumption; Rule 5.6, Applicability; and Rule 5.7, Public Participation, all of which are State effective on March 24, 2024. 10 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 State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 11

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to 11 MAC Part 2, Chapter 2, Rule 2.5B(1) and B(2), Application Review; 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 5, Rule 5.1, Purpose of this regulation; Rule 5.2, Adoption of Federal Rules by Reference; Rule 5.3, Definition of term “Administrator”; Rule 5.4, Adoption of Federal Rules for Exclusions from Increment Consumption; Rule 5.6, Applicability; and Rule 5.7, Public Participation. EPA is approving these changes because they are consistent with EPA's federal PSD permitting regulations and the CAA. In addition, EPA is converting the conditional approval portions of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS iSIP that address the PSD related requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J), and the modeling requirements of 110(a)(2)(K) to a full approval.

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 rulemaking 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.”

Mississippi 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. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for 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 December 30, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

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

The revisions and additions read as follows:

In a September 12, 2024, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA proposed to approve the November 28, 2022, SIP revision submitted by NCDAQ on behalf of Forsyth County in response to a June 12, 2015, action titled “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction” (“2015 SSM SIP Action”). See 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's rationale for the proposed approval and determination is explained in the September 12, 2024, NPRM. 1 See 89 FR 74171. The public comment period for EPA's proposed approval and determination ended on October 3, 2024. EPA received one comment on the September 12, 2024, NPRM, but the comment is not relevant to this action. The comment is available in the docket for this action.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Forsyth County Air Quality Control Ordinance and Technical Code Subchapter 3D, Section .0500, Rule 3D .0535, Excess Emissions Reporting and Malfunctions, locally effective July 14, 2022, with the following exceptions: EPA is not incorporating the last sentence of Rule 3D .0535(f), locally effective July 14, 2022, 2 and in Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g) is incorporating only the statements that each paragraph “is not included in Forsyth County's portion of the State Implementation Plan.”  3 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. 4

EPA is approving Forsyth County's November 28, 2022, SIP submission requesting changes to Rule 3D .0535, Excess Emissions Reporting and Malfunctions, except for the change to the cross-referenced rule in Rule 3D .0535(f), into the Forsyth County portion of the North Carolina SIP. Specifically, EPA is approving the removal of the substantive text of Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g) from the Forsyth County portion of the North Carolina SIP, the addition of statements clarifying that Rule 3D .0535(c) and (g) are not included in the Forsyth County portion of the North Carolina SIP, 5 and is otherwise approving the revised version of Rule 3D .0535 into the Forsyth County portion of the North Carolina SIP, 6 except for the last sentence of Rule 3D .0535(f), which contains a revised cross-reference that EPA is not acting on at this time. See 89 FR 74171. EPA is approving this SIP revision because the Agency has determined that it is consistent with the requirements for SIP provisions under the CAA.

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 rulemaking 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.”

The FCEAP 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 December 30, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

EPA is correcting the final rule that published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, October 9, 2024, (89 FR 82074); FRL-7218-01- OW to address an inadvertent error made of including a footnote superscript number “1” to the subpart heading “Appendix A to Part 139—Federally-Protected Waters”.

In FR Doc. 2024-22013 appearing at 89 FR 82074 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, October 9, 2024, the following correction is made:

This action corrects four minor errors to certain regulatory amendments established in the July 26, 2024, final rule (89 FR 60692) for 40 CFR 262.21, 262.42, and 262.83.

With respect to the regulatory amendments at § 262.21, the July 26 final rule established revised printing specification requirements at § 262.21(f)(6) and (7) for the new four-copy paper manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) forms. Section 262.21(f)(6) describes the revised copy distribution requirements to be printed on each copy of the new four-copy manifest (EPA-Form 8700-22) and continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A). Section 262.21(f)(7) describes the revised printing specifications for printing the appropriate manifest instructions on the back of the form copies. Although, EPA finalized the manifest forms themselves by revising the wording of the distribution scheme in the bottom right margins of the forms and by moving the instructions on the reverse side of Page 2 (“Designated Facility to Generator” copy) to the reverse side of Page 1 (top copy) of the manifest forms, EPA inadvertently did not make these conforming changes in the regulatory text at § 262.21(f)(6) and (7). This includes adding two instances of “U.S.” to the Page 1 (top copy) text and making changes for use of capitalization in Pages 1-4. To correct these errors, this action revises paragraph § 262.21(f)(6) so that the words indicating copy distribution exactly match the words shown at the bottom right margin of each copy of the new four-copy manifest forms. Similarly, and in addition, this action corrects § 262.21(f)(7) to match the language on the new four-copy manifest form— i.e., to require that commercial printers authorized by EPA to produce the manifest forms print the instructions for designated facilities and hazardous waste exporters on the reverse side of the top copy of the manifest forms instead of the reverse side of Page 2. This includes changing the title of the manifest instructions for the top copy of Manifest Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A from “Instructions for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities” to “Instructions for Exporters or Owners and Operators of Receiving Facilities Designated on the Manifest.”

With respect to the errors in §§ 262.42 and 262.83, this action corrects errors to certain instructions in part 262 which established regulatory revisions and additions, or both, to the hazardous waste exception reporting requirements at § 262.42 and to the requirements for export shipments of hazardous waste at § 262.83. The corrections to §§ 262.42 and 262.83 are necessary to ensure that certain regulatory amendments established in the July 26 final rule under part 262 are codified accurately and correctly in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The EPA is not providing a public comment opportunity prior to promulgation of today's technical corrections to §§ 262.21(f)(6) and (7), 262.42, and 262.83, nor is the EPA issuing a direct final rulemaking. That is because such public comment is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The corrections established in this action today are very minor and non-substantive technical corrections to regulations; thus, the corrections would not substantively alter the regulations established in the final rule in a way that would be of interest to the regulated community or the public. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the EPA finds good cause to promulgate these technical corrections without notice and comment because it would be unnecessary.

In FR Doc. 2024-14694 appearing at 89 FR 60692 in the Federal Register of Friday, July 26, 2024, the following corrections are made:

On August 21, 2024, HHS published a final rule amending 45 CFR parts 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, and 1305. We incorrectly established the effective date as August 21, 2024. The intention was for the rule to become effective on October 21, 2024. The earliest compliance date was correctly identified as October 21, 2024, in the final rule.

For reasons stated in the preamble, ACF corrects 45 CFR part 1302 by making the following correcting amendments:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 24-193, adopted October 17, 2024, and released October 17, 2024. The full text of this Commission decision is available online at https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The full text of this document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows: