Due to the number and non-substantive nature of the technical corrections made in this document, not all individual amendments are discussed below in this document's preamble, but all changes are described in the regulatory text section further below.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) periodically makes non-substantive technical corrections to its regulations, which are contained in 27 CFR chapter I. The technical amendments described in this document do not add any new or change any existing TTB regulatory requirement, and the described amendments do not change TTB's interpretation of any regulation. Additionally, the described amendments do not add any new or change any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or labeling requirement to the TTB regulations, nor do they change any burden associated with such requirements.

In general, throughout its regulations, TTB is correcting grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors; correcting or updating statutory authority citations, regulatory cross-references, and TTB form numbers; updating Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers for existing TTB information collections; updating references to publications and agency names and organizational structures; and updating mailing, delivery, and website addresses.

Also, in light of Treasury Department policy, TTB is replacing certain gender exclusive pronouns, such as “he” and “his,” with specific references to official titles or positions, such as “the Secretary,” or with gender inclusive or neutral pronouns or phrases, such as “their,” “he or she,” or “her or his.” In particular, TTB is revising gender exclusive references to the Secretary of the Treasury, the TTB Administrator, and certain other government officials. However, given the large number of gender exclusive pronouns in some parts of its regulations that refer to TTB officers, industry members, or members of the public, TTB will make further similar amendments in future rulemaking documents.

With regard to updating statutory authority citations, TTB is primarily revising the general statutory authority citations for the regulations contained in 27 CFR parts 20, 29, 44, 45, 46, and 70 to add a reference to 26 U.S.C. 6109, which is the section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that authorizes the collection of identifying numbers such as employer identification numbers from persons required to file returns, statements, or other documents. The addition of 26 U.S.C. 6109 to the statutory authority citation lists for those CFR parts merely corrects those lists and does not add or change any requirement to provide TTB with identifying numbers.

In addition to the general technical corrections noted above, TTB is making other unique technical amendments in specific parts of 27 CFR chapter I, as described below.

In 27 CFR 4.10, Meaning of terms, TTB is correcting typographical errors in the definitions of “pure condensed must” and “sugar.”

In 27 CFR 9.11(b), TTB is updating the postal mail and hand-delivery addresses for the submission of American viticultural area (AVA) petitions. TTB is also correcting typographical and other unintended errors in the boundary descriptions of several AVAs. These corrections do not change the intended boundary of any existing AVA, nor do they add or remove any acreage from any established AVA. Among those specific boundary corrections are three for the Eagle Foothills AVA as described in 27 CFR 9.252—in paragraph (c)(2), the phrase “the western boundary of sections 31 and 30 to the northwest corner of section 31,” is corrected to read “the western boundary of section 31 to the southwest corner of section 30;” in paragraph (c)(3), “section 31” is corrected to read “section 30;” and, in paragraph (c)(9), “3,400-foor” is corrected to read “3,400-foot.”

Among other corrections in part 19, TTB is updating cross-references to 27 CFR part 5, Labeling and Advertising of Distilled Spirits, contained in that part in response to the publication of T.D. TTB-176, Modernization of the Labeling and Advertising Regulations for Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages, published in the Federal Register of February 9, 2022, at 87 FR 7526. While T.D. TTB-176 revised part 5 in its entirety, that final rule inadvertently did not update the cross-references to that part contained in part 19. As such, this document updates the relevant cross-references contained in part 19 to match the current part 5 subpart designations and section numbers.

In 27 CFR 21.151, TTB is correcting an inadvertent error made in a final rule published in 2016 to amend the regulations concerning denatured alcohol and products made with industrial alcohol. See T.D. TTB-140, published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016, at 81 FR 59445. In that final rule, TTB removed certain obsolete special denatured alcohol (S.D.A.) formulas from the regulations, including Formula No. 27-B, which, at the time, was described in 27 CFR 21.54. As a result of that formula's removal, TTB removed all references to S.D.A. Formula No. 27-B from the table contained in § 21.151, List of denaturants authorized for denatured spirits, including its listing as the only approved formula for “Green soap, U.S.P.” However, in T.D. TTB-140, TTB inadvertently failed to include an amendatory instruction to remove the entire entry for “Green soap, U.S.P.” from the approved formulas table. Therefore, TTB is removing the remaining portion of that obsolete entry.

TTB recently published a final rule amending certain of its regulations pertaining to the production of wine in 27 CFR part 24 to add to the list of materials and processes authorized for the treatment of wine and of the juice from which wine is made, and to expand the authorized uses of certain materials already authorized under the regulations. See T.D. TTB-185, published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2022, at 87 FR 51880. That final rule contained an inadvertent error in the amended regulatory text of 27 CFR 24.250. As explained in that final rule's related prior notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 164, published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2016, at 81 FR 83752) and in the final rule, TTB intended to make a technical change to amend § 24.250, Application for use of new treating material or process, by revising paragraph (b)(4) to state that an application to use a new treating material or process must include documentary evidence from the FDA that the material is consistent with the food additive requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for its intended purpose in the amounts proposed for the particular treatment contemplated. This differs from the original regulatory text in that it does not require documentary evidence that the FDA has “approved” the use of the material. However, the amendatory instruction for § 24.250 in the final rule contained an inadvertent error that caused all of paragraph (b) to be removed and replaced by the text that was only intended to amend paragraph (b)(4). TTB is correcting § 24.250 by restoring the previous text of paragraph (b) and by amending only the text of paragraph (b)(4) as intended.

TTB also is amending 27 CFR 24.270, which sets forth the Federal excise tax rates on wine to reflect the statutory increase, from 14 percent to 16 percent, in the maximum alcohol by volume for the still wine tax class at 26 U.S.C 5041(b)(1) and in the minimum alcohol by volume for the still wine tax class at 26 U.S.C. 5041(b)(2). TTB is taking this action in response to the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (see Division EE of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260)), which made permanent the temporary provisions of the Craft Beverage Modernization Act contained within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97).

TTB is correcting 27 CFR 24.310, Taxpaid removals from bond record, to include a reference to allowing proprietors to record the tax class of wine removed from bond, in lieu of recording the alcohol content of the wine. TTB amended its regulations regarding certain wine records in 1990 (see T.D. ATF-299, published in the Federal Register of June 19, 1990, at 55 FR 24974), including 27 CFR 24.309, Transfer in bond record, and 27 CFR 24.311, Taxpaid wine record, to provide that option, but inadvertently did not include a similar change to § 24.310. This correction addresses that omission.

In 27 CFR 28.11, Meaning of terms, TTB is revising the definition of “Customs officer” to be consistent with the wording of that term's definition in other parts of 27 CFR chapter I. This revision does not change any part 28 regulatory requirement.

TTB is correcting 27 CFR 28.148, Brewer's report, to include a reference to form TTB F 5130.26, Quarterly Brewer's Report of Operations, in addition to the existing reference to form TTB F 5130.9, Brewer's Report of Operations, as a form certain small brewers may use for reporting, including the reporting of removals of beer or beer concentrate for purposes of exportation, use of supplies on vessels and aircraft, or transfer to a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ). Section 28.148 requires that brewers keep records and include in their operations reporting the quantity of beer or beer concentrate removed for such purposes, and elsewhere in the TTB regulations certain small brewers are authorized to use either form TTB F 5130.26 or form TTB F 5130.9, as appropriate, for such reporting. See 27 CFR 25.297. In T.D. TTB-123, published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2014, at 79 FR 58674, TTB amended § 25.297 to allow certain small brewers to report their operations reports on a quarterly basis (rather than monthly) using either form TTB F 5130.9 or form TTB F 5130.26. However, in that final rule, TTB inadvertently did not make a corresponding amendment to § 28.148. This amendment to § 28.148 does not change that section's reporting requirement or burden as it merely corrects that section to provide that brewers authorized to submit quarterly operations reports may choose to use either form TTB F 5130.9 or form TTB F 5130.26 to do so.

TTB is restoring “condenser” to the list of terms defined in part 29, subpart C, Stills, at 27 CFR 29.45, as that definition appears to have been inadvertently removed from that list in 2001. The regulations addressing stills appeared in 27 CFR part 170 prior to a reorganization of the regulations in 2001. TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), published T.D. ATF-439 in the Federal Register on February 2, 2001, at 66 FR 8768, amending certain definitions and regulations in part 170, including some definitions in 27 CFR 170.45, which is now 27 CFR 29.45. See 66 FR 8768, 8770. That final rule did not amend or affect the definition of “condenser” but, in the 2001 edition of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations published following the issuance of the final rule, the term “condenser” no longer appeared in the list of definitions at 27 CFR 170.45. ATF then redesignated part 170 as part 29 in T.D. ATF-462, published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2001, at 66 FR 42735, which recodified § 170.45 as 27 CFR 29.45. See 66 FR 42735, 42737. This correction addresses the inadvertent removal of the definition of “condenser” from the regulations.

TTB is adding a section to part 30, Gauging Manual, at 27 CFR 30.3 to provide the public with information on how to obtain a copy of the delegation order regarding the assignment of the TTB Administrator's regulatory authorities in part 30 to other TTB officers. These delegations of authority are set forth in TTB Order 1135.30, Delegation of the Administrator's Authorities in 27 CFR part 30, Gauging Manual, which is referenced in the definition of “Appropriate TTB officer” in 27 CFR 30.11, but additional information on accessing the delegation order through the TTB website or by mail is not currently included in the regulations. Similar sections regarding TTB delegation orders are present in other parts of 27 CFR chapter I that have related delegation orders and were generally added to that chapter in 2006 through T.D. TTB-44, Administrative Changes to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Regulations Due to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, published by TTB in the Federal Register on April 4, 2006, at 71 FR 16918. A section of this type was inadvertently not included for part 30, and this amendment makes part 30 consistent with those other parts. The added section is merely informational, and it imposes no new regulatory or information collection requirements on regulated industry members.

In 27 CFR 40.22, TTB is removing the last sentence of paragraph (b)(1), which provides that TTB may publish its constructive price determinations for large cigars if TTB finds that such public disclosure is necessary. TTB has determined that this provision is inconsistent with the taxpayer confidentiality provisions of the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C. 6103 which prohibit public disclosure of such tax-related information. For that reason, neither TTB nor its predecessor agency, ATF, have published a constructive price determination made under § 40.22(b).

TTB is updating the text of 27 CFR 40.491(b)(2) to be consistent with the amendments made to 27 CFR 40.522 in T.D. TTB-104, which implemented requirements from the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA); see 77 FR 37287, June 21, 2012. The correction to § 40.491(b)(2) makes that section consistent with § 40.522(d)(3) as amended by T.D. TTB-104, which allows a manufacturer of tobacco products who removes processed tobacco for any of the purposes listed in § 40.72(b)(2) to not report such removals on their tobacco operations report, form TTB F 5250.2 (while keeping records of such removals pursuant to § 40.521).

In 27 CFR 44.11, TTB is adding a definition of “customs officer” for informational purposes as that term is used throughout part 44. In §§ 44.122 and 44.129, TTB is removing references to Treasury Department Circular 154, which concerned the acceptance of government obligations in lieu of bonds, since the Department no longer publishes that circular. Instead, those sections will refer to the Treasury Department regulations contained in 31 CFR part 225, Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in Lieu of Bonds with Sureties.

In 27 CFR part 71, which concerns TTB's rules of practice in permit proceedings, TTB is amending the general statutory authority citation by adding a citation to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559). In addition, TTB is adding 26 U.S.C. 5171 to the part's general statutory authority citation because that section of the IRC concerns the establishment of, and permits for, distilled spirits plants. These additions are merely informational in nature, and do not affect or change TTB's interpretation of any regulatory or information collection requirement contained in part 71.

In 27 CFR 71.96, which concerns the disqualification of administrative law judges, TTB is revising that section to remove gender-specific pronouns but the intent of the regulation is unchanged.

In 27 CFR 71.97, which lists the power of administrative law judges in TTB-related matters, TTB is correcting that section to state that those judges make “initial decisions” in suspension, revocation, or annulment proceedings against TTB-issued permits rather than final decisions. This correction makes § 71.97(h) consistent with 27 CFR 71.78 and 71.79. TTB believes that a 1985 revision of § 71.97(h) inadvertently dropped the words “initial decisions” from that paragraph. See T.D. ATF-199, published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1985, at 50 FR 9152, 9197. In addition, TTB is correcting the paragraph formatting of § 71.97 to conform that section to current CFR format requirements; the text of section is unchanged except for the correction to paragraph (h) noted above.

Finally, in 27 CFR 71.116, which concerns the TTB Administrator's review of application proceedings, TTB is updating references to the “Under Secretary of the Treasury” with references to “Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.” The current text refers to the Under Secretary for Enforcement, a position that no longer exists within the Department of the Treasury, and the duties of that former position relevant to TTB have been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy. TTB is also updating gender exclusive references in this section and is removing the statutory authority statement at the end of the section as it cites several firearms-related laws that no longer apply to TTB. The Bureau believes that the general statutory authorities cited for part 71, as amended in this document, support the regulatory provisions of § 71.116, and, as such, there is no need for a separate section-level authority citation. As with the other technical amendments in this document, these technical amendments do not affect the requirements of that section.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

It has been determined that this technical correction final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not necessary.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously reviewed, approved, and assigned control numbers to the collections of information contained in certain regulations amended in this final rule in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The technical corrections contained in this document do not add any new or affect the existing requirements or estimated burden of any established TTB information collection, recordkeeping, or labeling requirement.

TTB is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). That provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In this final rule, TTB is merely making technical corrections to the TTB regulations, which do not change the requirements or TTB's interpretation of any regulation and do not change any TTB information collection, recordkeeping, or labeling requirement. Therefore, TTB finds that prior notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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 prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the salvage operations of a sunken vessel. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because salvage operations may begin as soon as October 31, 2024.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the salvage operations of the sunken vessel will be a safety concern for the vessels involved with the salvage operations and anyone within a 500-yard radius of salvage operations. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the salvage operations are being conducted.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone which will be in effect from October 31, 2024, through November 30, 2024. The rule will only be subject to enforcement, however, for a seven-day period within the time the rule will be in effect. There needs to be a seven-day window of good weather for salvage operations to be conducted safely. The safety zone will only be enforced upon issuance of a Broadcast Notice to Mariners by the COTP, as well as on-scene notice. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters, on a portion of the Atlantic Ocean, within 500 yards of the sunken vessel being salvaged, in position latitude 40°05′32.3″ N, longitude 74°01′28.4″ W. This coordinate is based on Datum WGS 84. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the salvage operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and location of the temporary safety zone. The safety zone is effective for 30 days but will only be enforced for 7 days during active salvage operations. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone while the safety zone is being enforced. Moreover, the Coast Guard will release the details of the zone via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners on VHF-FM radio channel 16.

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

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 proposed rule. If the proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 7 days that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of salvage operations of a sunken vessel. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

On August 16, 2022, (87 FR 50257) EPA took final action to disapprove portions of a Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted May 16, 2016 that, among other things, established NO X emission limitations for the coal-fired EGUs equipped with SCR at the Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and Montour facilities, to satisfy certain RACT obligations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 1 EPA's August 16, 2022, final disapproval started a sanctions clock under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31. The two-to-one new source emissions offset sanction took effect on March 15, 2024 (18 months following the September 15, 2022, effective date of the August 16, 2022, disapproval, 87 FR 50257). Highway funding sanctions would have taken effect September 15, 2024, unless the state submitted, and EPA approved, SIP revisions correcting the deficiencies identified in the August 16, 2022, disapproval action.

On August 31, 2022, EPA issued a Federal implementation plan (FIP) adopting NO X RACT limits for these four sources addressing these same RACT obligations. 87 FR 53381. Three of the sources subject to the FIP filed a challenge to the FIP in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Keystone-Conemaugh Projects LLC v. EPA, et al., No. 22-3026. Following briefing and oral argument, on May 2, 2024, the Third Circuit issued a decision upholding the RACT limits and other requirements in EPA's August 31, 2022, FIP. The court decided and resolved all issues raised by the Petitioners in EPA's favor. Id.

On April 10, 2024, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted two SIP revisions to EPA which adopted into the SIP the NO X limits and other requirements found in EPA's final August 31, 2022, FIP for Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and Montour (Montour was submitted separately). On July 10, 2024, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve Pennsylvania's April 10, 2024, SIP revisions (89 FR 56680). EPA's NPRM also proposed to find that the incorporation of title V permits containing the FIP requirements into Pennsylvania's SIP addressed the deficiencies identified in EPA's August 16, 2022 (87 FR 50257), partial disapproval. The reasons for the proposed approval and the determination were stated in the proposal for this action and will not be restated here. Based on this finding and the proposed approval, EPA simultaneously issued an Interim Final Determination (IFD) staying the application of the offset sanction and deferring the application of the highway sanction triggered by EPA's August 16, 2022 (87 FR 50257) disapproval. 89 FR 56666 (July 10, 2024). EPA's proposed action noted that it was not taking action at this time on certain RACT limits for auxiliary boilers which were included in the SIP revisions, and therefore this final action does not address those RACT limits for the identified auxiliary boilers.

The public comment period for the proposed approval and determination ended on August 9, 2024. EPA received three comments, which can be found in the docket. One of the comments is not relevant to this action and will not be addressed. The other two were supportive, but one generally supportive comment also contained comments which could be considered adverse. Those potentially adverse comments are addressed below.

Pennsylvania's SIP submissions, dated April 9, 2024, and received by EPA on April 10, 2024, included four redacted title V permits incorporating the FIP requirements for the EGUs equipped with SCR at Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City, and Montour. EPA has reviewed these permits and determined that the permits incorporate the same emission limits, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, reporting, work practices and other requirements for these EGUs found in EPA's FIP. The permits are listed in Table 1 in this document. These submissions and permits are part of the docket for this rule making and are available online at www.regulations.gov.

The title V permits in the April 10, 2024, SIP submissions for Keystone and Conemaugh also contain case-by-case RACT limits for certain gas or oil-fired auxiliary boilers at these facilities. However, EPA is not taking action at this time on the case-by-case RACT limits in these permits for two auxiliary boilers at Keystone (Source IDs 037 and 038) and two at Conemaugh (Source IDs 039 and 041). These auxiliary boilers were not subject to the presumptive RACT limit in 25 Pa. Code 129.97(g)(1)(viii) for which EPA issued a final disapproval in August 2022.

As explained in the proposed action, EPA's assessment regarding the approvability of the RACT limits and other requirements for these EGUs found in Pennsylvania's SIP submission is substantially the same as the justification and analysis in the record EPA created for its FIP. EPA provided an in-depth discussion of the methodology and reasoning for setting the FIP limits for each of these EGUs in EPA's proposed FIP (87 FR 31798, May 25, 2022), the associated technical support document supporting the proposed FIP, and in responses to comments received on the proposed FIP and published with the final FIP action (87 FR 53381, August 31, 2022). EPA has put the technical support document for EPA's FIP into the docket for this action. The Federal Register documents for the proposed and final FIP are available at www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0347 and in the Federal Register at the citations provided in the prior sentence. EPA is not aware of any change in the facts since the FIP was finalized that would alter any of the limits or requirements or EPA's analysis supporting the FIP. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's April 10, 2024, submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

EPA received three comments on the July 10, 2024, documents. One comment is not relevant to this action and will not be addressed. A summary of the other two comments and EPA's responses follow. Copies of all the comments are in the docket for this rule action.

Comment 1: The commenter first acknowledges some key historical developments concerning the NO X RACT requirements for the Keystone and Conemaugh EGUs, including PADEP's prior SIP submission of May 26, 2022, EPA's proposed disapproval of that SIP submission, PADEP's withdrawal of that SIP submission following EPA's proposed disapproval, and the May 2, 2024, decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the RACT limits and other requirements in EPA's August 31, 2022, FIP. The commenter then states that they “[support] the EPA's effort to finalize the SIP as prepared by the PADEP.”

The commenter then notes that “the challenges of operating under these limits that KEY-CON noted during the rulemaking process for the FIP remain.” The commenter asserts that in order to account for start-up events where higher NO X emissions above the limit are unavoidable, the sources must operate at a target NO X emission rate that is lower than each sources' limit. The commenter acknowledges that “operating in this manner provides a manageable balance for maintaining an adequate (but small) margin of compliance and limiting excessive aqueous ammonia injection rates that are required to achieve lower NO X emission rates.” The comment notes that extended periods of excessive ammonia injection can lead to fouling of the air preheaters, and that this problem is exacerbated in colder weather. As a result, the commenter states that the frequency of conducting heater washes, as well as SCR reactor maintenance, has increased, and that the limits in the proposed rulemaking “are at the very bounds of our NO X emissions control capability.”

Response 1: EPA thanks the commenter for their largely supportive comment, and agrees that PADEP's April 10, 2024, SIP revision incorporating the NO X limits from EPA's FIP should be finally approved and incorporated in the Pennsylvania SIP to meet certain RACT requirements for these sources for the 1997 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS. The commenter's concerns regarding fouling of the air preheaters with ammonium bisulfate (ABS) under certain conditions and the need for increased maintenance to address this fouling are similar to those contained in the commenter's July 11, 2022, comments on EPA's proposed FIP. EPA addressed those comments in the final rule adopting the FIP limits. See 87 FR 53381, at 53390 and 53391, August 31, 2022. However, the commenter now goes on to state that the current limits and other requirements provide “a manageable balance for maintaining an adequate (but small) margin of compliance.” EPA agrees that this balance is appropriate in light of the longstanding definition of RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.”  2 Table 2, in this preamble are citations to the specific places in the final rule approving the FIP limit where EPA responded to similar concerns expressed by the commenter.

In addition to the above concerns, the commenter expresses concern that in the future, more restrictive limits might be placed on these units in order to meet RACT requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Although Pennsylvania has adopted regulations setting RACT limits for certain major sources of VOCs and NO X (See 25 Pa. Code 129.111—129.115) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, those regulations do not set NO X limits for coal-fired EGUs equipped with SCR. When PADEP develops case-by-case RACT limits for the commenter's sources and submits them to EPA for approval as a SIP revision, there will be another opportunity for the commenter to share information on whether any new but lower NO X limits are technologically and economically feasible.

Comment 2: The commenter states:

Response 2: EPA agrees that it is essential that control measures adopted for these facilities be strict and in line with current technologies and practices, so long as those technologies and practices meet the definition of RACT. EPA's longstanding definition of RACT is “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.”  3 EPA also agrees that the RACT limits must be accompanied by enforceable measures, appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure compliance. EPA believes that the requirements of its FIP, and this SIP revision adopting the same FIP requirements, achieve RACT levels of control and provide the necessary monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting needed to ensure enforcement of the limits. EPA also notes that the RACT limits and other requirements for these sources have been enforceable since March 29, 2023, which was the initial compliance date for the limits set forth in the FIP issued by EPA on September 30, 2022. 87 FR 53381. Regarding the IFD, EPA notes that the IFD only stayed the application of the offset sanction and deferred the application of the highway funding sanctions. The IFD does not in any way impact the RACT requirements the facilities must meet in the FIP.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's April 10, 2024, SIP revision to the Pennsylvania SIP, with the exception of certain RACT limits for auxiliary boilers, as set forth in EPA's NPRM. In addition, EPA is determining that Pennsylvania's April 10, 2024, SIP revision addressed the deficiencies identified in EPA's August 16, 2022 (87 FR 50257) partial disapproval. Finalization of this approval permanently stops the offset sanctions which took effect on March 15, 2024, and prevents the imposition of highways sanctions which could have taken effect on September 15, 2024.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-specific RACT determinations and alternative NO X emissions limits under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of NO X in Pennsylvania described in section II. of this preamble and as set for the below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III 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 rule of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 4

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” 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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 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 environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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 January 6, 2025. 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 addressing the NO X RACT requirements for EGUs equipped with SCR at the Keystone, Conemaugh, Homer City and Montour facilities for the 1997 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

This action revises on an interim basis the Good Neighbor Plan (the Plan), 1 which includes regulations addressing emissions from electricity generating units (EGUs) and non-EGU industrial sources. This action also revises other allowance trading program regulations that apply to EGUs but not to non-EGU sources. The affected sources are generally in the following industry groups:

As promulgated, the Plan applied to emissions sources in 23 states. The effectiveness of the Plan's requirements for sources in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia was stayed in previous actions. This action applies to sources in the remaining states covered by the Plan as promulgated: California, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The information provided in this section on potentially affected entities is not intended to be exhaustive. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Statutory authority to issue the amendments finalized in this action is provided by the same Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that provided authority to issue the regulations being amended: CAA section 110(a) and (c), 42 U.S.C. 7410(a) and (c) (state implementation plan (SIP) and federal implementation plan (FIP) requirements, including requirements for mitigation of interstate air pollution), and CAA section 301, 42 U.S.C. 7601 (general rulemaking authority). Statutory authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553.

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the “good neighbor” provision, requires each state's SIP to include provisions sufficient to “prohibit[ ], consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will—(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].” The EPA often refers to the emissions reduction requirements under this provision as “good neighbor obligations” and submissions addressing these requirements as “good neighbor SIPs.” CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (i) finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission; (ii) finds a SIP submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C); or (iii) disapproves a SIP submission. This obligation applies unless the state corrects the deficiency through a SIP revision that the Administrator approves before the FIP is promulgated.

In March 2023, in accordance with CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(c)(1), the EPA promulgated the Good Neighbor Plan, a rule determining the good neighbor obligations of 23 states with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS and establishing FIP requirements for emissions sources in the states to address the states' obligations by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), an ozone precursor. Following the Plan's promulgation, in response to judicial orders partially staying a separate EPA action as to several states, the EPA issued two sets of interim amendments (referred to here as the First and Second Interim Final Rules) staying the Plan's effectiveness for emissions sources in those states pending further EPA rulemaking. 2 As modified by the First and Second Interim Final Rules, the Plan applied to EGUs within the borders of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin and to non-EGU sources within the borders of nine of the same ten states (all except Wisconsin) as well as California. 3 For EGUs, the Plan as promulgated requires affected sources to participate in the CSAPR NO X Ozone Season “Group 3” Trading Program as amended by the Plan starting with the 2023 ozone season (the period from May 1 through September 30 of each year). For non-EGU sources, the Plan as promulgated establishes source-specific compliance requirements that generally take effect starting with the 2026 ozone season.

The Plan's compliance requirements for EGUs were coordinated with similar trading program-based compliance requirements established under two earlier EPA rules. Before the Plan was promulgated, EGUs in a set of states including Wisconsin were addressing these states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS by participating in the CSAPR NO X Ozone Season “Group 2” Trading Program established under the CSAPR Update, 4 and EGUs in a set of states including Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were addressing those states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS by participating in the pre-Plan version of the Group 3 trading program established under the Revised CSAPR Update. 5 In the Plan, the EPA's previous determinations concerning states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS were not altered, but the EPA allowed participation of the states' EGUs in the Group 3 trading program as amended by the Plan to serve as the compliance mechanism to address not only the EGU-related portions of the states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS but also the states' previously determined good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 6

In October 2023, after failing to obtain a stay from the Unites States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), 7 four sets of parties submitted emergency applications to the United States Supreme Court seeking a stay of some or all of the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements. 8 In an opinion issued on June 27, 2024 (referred to here as the Stay Order), the Supreme Court granted the emergency applications and ordered that “[e]nforcement of EPA's rule against the applicants shall be stayed” while judicial review of the Plan on the merits proceeds, first in the D.C. Circuit and then potentially in the Supreme Court. 9

In this action, the EPA is responding to the Stay Order by administratively staying the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements for all emissions sources subject to the Plan as promulgated, not just the applicants for a stay before the Supreme Court. The Agency's determination on the scope of the administrative stay is discussed in section II.B. of this document. In addition, as discussed in section II.C. of this document, the EPA is modifying its trading program regulations for EGUs to ensure that the existing good neighbor obligations of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS will continue to be met while the administrative stay is in effect. The approach being taken with respect to the EGUs in these states in this action is the same as the approach taken with respect to the EGUs in similarly situated states in the First and Second Interim Final Rules. Section II.D. of this document describes the specific regulatory amendments being adopted in this action to implement the administrative stay and modify the trading programs.

The amendments to the regulatory requirements for EGUs and non-EGU sources that are being finalized in this action in response to the Stay Order are intended to apply on an interim basis until the Plan's requirements can be reimplemented, as appropriate and in accordance with the final judgment of a reviewing court, through a future rulemaking action. The EPA generally anticipates that any future action bringing the Plan's requirements into effect after a stay would phase in the requirements so as to provide lead times to implement the Plan's identified emissions control strategies comparable to the lead times that the Plan would have provided in the absence of the stay, thereby giving parties sufficient time to prepare for implementation.

The first issue addressed by this action concerns the scope of the administrative stay being implemented in response to the Stay Order, and specifically the treatment of emissions sources whose owners and operators were not among the applicants for a stay before the Supreme Court. By its terms, the Stay Order extends only to the applicants. 10 Three of the named applicants are states—Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia—and although the Good Neighbor Plan imposes no requirements on states, the EPA interprets the Stay Order as applying to all EGUs and non-EGU sources meeting the Plan's applicability criteria that are located in these states. 11 The named industry applicants for a stay include several owners of EGUs or non-EGU sources expected to meet the Plan's applicability criteria and several trade associations, including some trade associations whose identified members include other trade associations. 12 Beyond the individually named applicants, the full set of applicants also encompasses applicant trade associations' members, which in turn includes members of trade associations that are applicants by virtue of their membership in other applicant trade associations. 13

Through the members of the applicant trade associations, the Stay Order covers a broad range of the EGUs and non-EGU sources that would otherwise be subject to the Plan's requirements in states other than Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia. In the ordinary circumstances, if an EPA rule that requires pollution reductions becomes subject to a judicial stay, the Agency would apply the stay by its precise terms, because that approach would be expected to preserve the rule's health and environmental benefits to the maximum extent possible while the stay remains in effect. However, in this instance, to continue enforcing the Plan's requirements as to emissions sources not owned or operated by applicants while staying enforcement of the Plan's requirements as to sources owned or operated by applicants, the EPA would need to use trade association membership as an applicability criterion in distinguishing among covered and noncovered sources, which would be an inherently uncertain method by which to make such determinations. Although, to the EPA's knowledge, not all owners and operators of EGUs and non-EGU sources meeting the Plan's applicability criteria were members of applicant trade associations when the applications for a stay were submitted or when the Stay Order was issued, an entity that is not already a member of an applicant trade association could choose to become one. The Stay Order does not speak to whether there is a specific point in time at which an entity must be a member of an applicant trade association to be covered by the Court's stay as to applicants. The need to use trade association membership as an applicability criterion in this instance would therefore create uncertainty and a high likelihood of legal disputes over which individual sources must be excluded from enforcement of the Plan's requirements during the pendency of the Stay Order. 14

In short, in the specific circumstances of the Plan and the related litigation, continuing to enforce the Plan's requirements for some sources but not others while using trade association membership as an applicability criterion to distinguish between covered and noncovered sources would entail extreme administrative complexity and such a degree of inherent uncertainty as to reach the point of impracticability. Accordingly, the EPA has determined that the only practicable way to comply with the Stay Order is to administratively stay enforcement of the Plan's requirements as to all sources covered by the Plan as promulgated. 15

The EPA notes that in addition to being the only practicable means of complying with the Stay Order as to the Plan in these circumstances, the scope of the administrative stay being implemented in this action is consistent with the Supreme Court's rationale in granting the stay applications. The Court did not identify any specific, substantive flaw concerning the Plan's requirements for any regulated party, but rather preliminarily found that the EPA had likely failed to adequately respond to comments concerning the Plan's application if it were not in effect for one or more upwind states. 16 In implementing an administrative stay as to all sources covered by the Plan as promulgated, the Agency recognizes that the grounds on which the Court stayed enforcement of the Plan's requirements as to the applicants could have applied to any such source whose owner or operator had applied to the Court for relief. 17

The second issue addressed in this action concerns how to ensure that the previously determined good neighbor obligations of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS will continue to be met while the effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements is stayed. As noted in section II.A. of this document, before issuance of the Stay Order, participation of the EGUs in these ten states in the Group 3 trading program as amended by the Good Neighbor Plan was serving as the compliance mechanism for not only the EGU-related portions of the states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS but also the states' previously determined good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Stay Order does not affect the states' good neighbor obligations as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which were determined in the CSAPR Update (for Wisconsin) and in the Revised CSAPR Update (for the other nine states), but it prevents the Group 3 trading program as amended by the Plan from being used as the compliance mechanism to address the obligations. Consequently, an alternate compliance mechanism is needed to address the states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS while the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements is stayed.

To address the 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor obligations for these ten states, the EPA is taking the same overall approach as was taken in the First and Second Interim Final Rules for states covered by earlier judicial orders. The central feature of the alternate compliance mechanism adopted under this approach is a requirement for the EGUs within the borders of the ten states to participate in the Group 2 trading program for the 2024 ozone season and future ozone seasons while the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements remains stayed. 18 The amounts of the state emissions budgets that will apply for each ozone season will be the amounts that would have applied for that ozone season under the CSAPR Update, for Wisconsin, or the Revised CSAPR Update, for the other nine states. Like EGUs in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, EGUs in Wisconsin participated in the Group 2 trading program immediately before implementation of the Plan and therefore will use “Original Group 2” allowances for compliance under the Group 2 trading program. Like EGUs in Kentucky, Louisiana, and West Virginia, EGUs in Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia participated in the pre-Plan version of the Group 3 trading program immediately before implementation of the Plan and therefore will use “Expanded Group 2” allowances for compliance under the Group 2 trading program. 19

The amounts of the unit-level allocations of newly issued Group 2 allowances to EGUs within the borders of the ten states will be the same amounts of allowances that would have been allocated to the EGUs for the same ozone seasons under the CSAPR Update, for EGUs within the borders of Wisconsin, or under the Revised CSAPR Update, for EGUs within the borders of the other nine states. 20 In almost all cases, the EPA will record the allocated amounts of newly issued 2024 Group 2 allowances in the sources' compliance accounts without adjustment. However, a small number of transactions involving 2024 Group 3 allowances occurred before issuance of the Stay Order. To preserve the substantive effect of these pre-stay transactions, the Agency will adjust the quantities of newly issued 2024 Group 2 allowances recorded in the relevant sources' compliance accounts upward or downward by the amounts of the pre-stay transactions on a 1-for-1 basis. 21 The EPA will deduct all 2024 Group 3 allowances from all compliance accounts and general accounts as soon as practicable on or after November 21, 2024 and will record the newly issued 2024 Group 2 allowances with these adjustments in sources' compliance accounts as soon as practicable on or after December 6, 2024.

Consistent with the provisions applicable to EGUs in states covered by the First and Second Interim Final Rules, the EPA is providing EGUs in the ten states covered by this action an opportunity to have “banked” 2021-2023 Group 3 allowances converted to Group 2 allowances on a 1-for-1 basis. 22 To be converted, the Group 3 allowances must be held in the compliance account for an EGU within the borders of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Wisconsin as of the conversion date, which will be as soon as practicable on or after December 23, 2024. Group 3 allowances held in the compliance accounts of EGUs in Wisconsin will be converted to Original Group 2 allowances, while Group 3 allowances held in the compliance accounts of EGUs in the other nine states will be converted to Expanded Group 2 allowances. Group 3 allowances held in other compliance accounts or in general accounts will not be converted. 23

Finally, revisions are needed to two sets of provisions that were adopted in earlier rules to address situations that could arise after an EGU transitions from one trading program to another trading program, because the provisions as previously designed cannot accommodate the greater complexity of transition patterns necessitated by the Stay Order. The first set of provisions governs how EGUs that have transitioned between trading programs may use allowances from later trading programs to meet surrender requirements for past ozone seasons under earlier trading programs. The EPA is preserving the core functionality of these provisions by revising them to employ a simpler approach under which certain allowances from an EGU's current trading program may be used to meet certain surrender obligations under a previous trading program on a 1-for-1 basis. The second set of provisions governed potential future conversions of allowances that had been allocated for past ozone seasons but had not yet been recorded. The potential situation these provisions were designed to address has never arisen in practice, and the EPA is removing the provisions instead of revising them.

This section describes the specific regulatory amendments that the EPA is adopting to carry out the Agency's response to the Stay Order. Supplementing the descriptions in this section, the EPA is also adding documents to the docket showing all the regulatory revisions that are being adopted in this action in redline-strikeout format.

The principal amendment to 40 CFR part 52 that the EPA is adopting to stay the effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements for non-EGU sources within the borders of California, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia is a revision to the existing provision at § 52.40(c)(4), which under the First and Second Interim Final Rules stayed the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements for non-EGU sources within the borders of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. 24 The revision in this action expands the provision's list of states to include the remaining ten states where requirements for non-EGU sources would otherwise apply under the Plan as promulgated. In addition, parallel provisions staying the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements for non-EGU sources are being added to the state-specific subparts of part 52 for each of the relevant states. 25

The amendments to 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 that the EPA is adopting to stay the effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements for EGUs within the borders of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin while ensuring continued implementation of requirements established to address good neighbor obligations under rules promulgated before the Plan include the following:

• New provisions are being added at § 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(D)( 5 ) and ( 4 ) to stay the effectiveness of requirements for EGUs within the borders of Wisconsin and the other nine states, respectively, to participate in the Group 3 trading program for ozone seasons after 2023, and the existing provisions at § 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(D)( 2 ) and ( 1 ), which require EGUs within the borders of most states covered by the First and Second Interim Final Rules to participate in the Group 2 trading program while the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements is stayed, 26 are being revised to extend the provisions to EGUs within the borders of Wisconsin and the other nine states, respectively. Parallel provisions are also being added to the state-specific subparts of part 52 for each of the relevant states. 27

• The existing provisions at § 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(D)( 1 ) and (b)(16)(ii)(A), which apply to states covered by the Revised CSAPR Update and the Plan as originally promulgated and address, among other things, the effects of SIP revisions approved to modify or replace the federal Group 2 trading program regulations, are being revised to provide that for EGUs in states for which the EPA has approved such SIP revisions, the EPA will administer the trading program in accordance with the SIP revisions, but only for SIP revisions approved after the effective date of this rule. The analogous existing provisions at § 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(D)( 2 ) and (b)(16)(ii)(B), which apply to states covered by the CSAPR Update and the Plan as originally promulgated but not by the Revised CSAPR Update, will continue to apply with respect to SIP revisions approved either before or after this rule.

• The existing provisions at § 97.810(a) and (b), which identify the amounts of state emissions budgets, new unit set-asides, Indian country new unit set-asides, and variability limits by state and ozone season under the Group 2 trading program, are being revised to provide the same amounts for each of the ten states for ozone seasons after 2023 as would have been provided under the CSAPR Update or the Revised CSAPR Update (for Wisconsin or the other nine states, respectively) in the absence of the Plan. The amounts of the unit-level allocations of Group 2 allowances from the state emission budgets will be determined in accordance with § 97.811(a) as previously amended by the First Interim Final Rule.

• The existing provisions at § 97.821(e) and (f), which establish schedules for recording Group 2 allowances in sources' compliance accounts, and the existing provisions at § 97.811(d)(1) and (e)(1), which governed recalls of 2024 Group 2 allowances during the earlier transitions of states out of the Group 2 trading program, are being revised to establish the schedule for recording allocations of the new 2024 Group 2 allowances to be issued in response to the Stay Order and to more clearly distinguish these newly issued 2024 Group 2 allowances from the previously issued 2024 Group 2 allowances that were recorded in 2020 and then recalled during trading program transitions in 2021 and 2023.

• A new provision is being added at § 97.1011(d) to recall all 2024 Group 3 allowances previously recorded under the Plan and currently held in any compliance account or general account. To preserve the substantive effect of transfers and deductions of 2024 Group 3 allowances that occurred before issuance of the Stay Order and this recall, the revised recordation provision at § 97.821(e)(3) requires corresponding positive or negative adjustments to be made to the quantities of the newly issued 2024 Group 2 allowances that will be recorded in the relevant sources' compliance accounts.

• A new provision is being added at § 97.1026(e)(2)  28 to convert all banked 2021-2023 Group 2 allowances that as of the conversion date are held in the compliance accounts of EGUs within the borders of the ten states to Original Group 2 allowances or Expanded Group 2 allowances (for EGUs within the borders of Wisconsin or the other nine states, respectively) on a 1-for-1 basis.

• The existing provisions at §§ 97.526(e), 97.826(f), and 97.1026(f), which address how EGUs that have transitioned between trading programs may use allowances from later trading programs to meet surrender requirements for past ozone seasons under earlier trading programs, are being revised to prospectively apply a uniform approach where certain allowances from an EGU's current trading program may be used for this purpose on a 1-for-1 basis.

• The existing provisions at §§ 97.526(d)(2) and 97.826(d)(3) and (e)(2), which addressed potential future conversions of not-yet-recorded allowances that have been allocated for a past ozone season under one trading program to EGUs that have transitioned to another trading program, are being removed.

• The existing provisions at §§ 97.830(b)(1) and 97.834(d)(2)(i), which establish deadlines for affected units to commence monitoring and reporting activities under the Group 2 trading program, are being revised to provide each affected EGU within the borders of the ten states the same deadlines as would have applied to that EGU in the absence of the Plan.

• Conforming updates and other minor technical corrections are being made as necessary to the provisions at §§ 52.38(b)(14)(iii), 97.806(c)(4)(iv), 97.824(c)(2)(ii), 97.826(b) and (e)(1), 97.1024(c)(2)(ii), and 97.1026(b) and (e)(1) and several definitions in §§ 97.502, 97.802, and 97.1002, as well as to the provisions identified in previous items in this list.

The EPA's authority for the rulemaking procedures followed in this action is provided by 5 U.S.C. 553. 29 In general, an agency issuing a rule under the procedures in section 553 must provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, but section 553(b)(B) includes an exemption from notice-and-comment requirements “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” This action is being issued as an interim final rule without prior notice or opportunity for public comment because the EPA finds that the APA “good cause” exemption from notice-and-comment requirements applies here.

The basis for the finding of good cause is that following notice-and-comment procedures is unnecessary and impracticable for this action. With respect to the scope of the administrative stay being implemented in this action, the EPA has no discretion to enforce the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements against emissions sources located in applicant states or owned or operated by applicant industry entities while the Stay Order remains in effect. Further, as explained in section II.B. of this document, continuing to enforce the Plan's requirements against any sources owned and operated by non-applicants and using the applicability criterion of whether a given source is or is not owned or operated by a member of an applicant trade association to distinguish covered sources from noncovered sources is not a practicable option to comply with the Stay Order. With respect to the regulatory revisions that provide an alternate mechanism for EGUs in states where the Plan is newly stayed to continue to address the states' good neighbor obligations with respect to other ozone NAAQS, while some superficial discretion exists concerning the specific design of the regulatory revisions, no discretion exists as to the function of that design, which is to restore requirements substantively identical to those that would have applied in the absence of the Plan. As explained in section II.C. of this document, the EPA's design for the regulatory revisions in this action accomplishes this function. Taking comment so as to allow the public to advocate for not staying the effectiveness of the Good Neighbor Plan's requirements, not adopting regulatory revisions needed to implement requirements substantively identical to those that would have applied in the absence of the Plan, or adopting superficially different regulatory revisions to accomplish the same function would serve no purpose and is therefore unnecessary.

Following notice-and-comment procedures for this action would also be impracticable. Even though no specific statutory or judicial deadline applies, this action nevertheless needs to be completed quickly to provide clarity to the regulated community about the regulatory requirements that apply during a stay and to ensure that states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS continue to be met. The EPA has acted expeditiously to respond to the Stay Order. If the contents of this action were instead issued in the form of a proposal subject to notice-and-comment procedures, the comment period and the time needed after the close of the comment period to review any comments, prepare responses, and draft and review a final rule would likely require at least 90 additional days, extending the period before parties would know their regulatory requirements to six months or more after the issuance of the Stay Order.

The regulatory revisions made in this action will take effect immediately upon publication of the action in the Federal Register . In general, an agency issuing a rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 must provide for a period of at least 30 days between the rule's dates of publication and effectiveness, but section 553(d) specifies several exceptions to that general requirement, including two that apply to this action.

First, under section 553(d)(1), an exception applies to a rule that “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” Because the portions of this action that stay the effectiveness of the Plan's requirements for emissions sources in certain states grant or recognize an exemption (on an interim basis while the Stay Order remains in place), the normal 30-day minimum period between this action's dates of publication and effectiveness is not required. The EPA is making these portions of the action effective as of the action's publication date to comply with the Stay Order in a timely manner.

Second, under section 553(d)(3), the normal 30-day minimum period between a rule's dates of publication and effectiveness does not apply “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” With respect to the portions of this action that provide an alternate mechanism for EGUs in states where the Plan is newly stayed to continue to address the states' good neighbor obligations under rules issued before the Plan, the EPA finds good cause to make the regulatory revisions effective as of the action's publication date for the following reasons. First, these regulatory revisions benefit the public by avoiding the possibility that interruption of the previously established requirements would cause air quality degradation. Second, these regulatory revisions benefit the regulated community by clarifying the regulatory requirements that apply in light of the Stay Order. Finally, making these regulatory revisions effective less than 30 days after this action's publication date does not conflict with the purpose of the normal requirement for a 30-day minimum period, which is “to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.”  30 The regulatory revisions in this action ensuring the continued achievement of states' previously established good neighbor obligations impose no requirements on any emissions source that differ substantively from the requirements that would have applied to that source in the absence of the Plan. Thus, no affected party needs time to adjust its behavior in preparation for these regulatory revisions.

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

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

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The OMB has previously approved the information collection activities that will apply to the EGUs affected by this action and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0258, 2060-0667, and 2060-0745. Additional information collection activities that will apply to non-EGU sources under the Good Neighbor Plan have been submitted to the OMB for approval in conjunction with that rulemaking. This action makes no changes to the information collection activities under the previously approved information collection requests (ICRs) for EGUs or the additional information collection activities for which approval has been requested in the Plan's ICR for non-EGU sources.

This action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action simply stays the effectiveness of certain regulatory requirements for certain emissions sources on an interim basis in response to a procedural court order while ensuring that previously applicable regulatory requirements continue to be met.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This action simply stays the effectiveness of certain regulatory requirements for certain emissions sources on an interim basis in response to a procedural court order while ensuring that previously applicable regulatory requirements continue to be met.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action simply stays the effectiveness of certain regulatory requirements for certain emissions sources on an interim basis in response to a procedural court order while ensuring that previously applicable regulatory requirements continue to be met. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action responds to a court order issued by the United States Supreme Court and the EPA lacks discretion to deviate from the order. The EPA's assessment of health and climate benefits for the action establishing the requirements that are being stayed is discussed in Chapter 5 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Good Neighbor Plan. 31

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action simply stays the effectiveness of certain regulatory requirements for certain emissions sources on an interim basis in response to a procedural court order while ensuring that previously applicable regulatory requirements continue to be met.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. This action responds to a court order issued by the United States Supreme Court and the EPA lacks discretion to deviate from the order. The EPA's assessment of environmental justice considerations for the action establishing the requirements that are being stayed is discussed in section VII. of the Good Neighbor Plan preamble. 32

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801-808, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in section III. of this document, including the basis for that finding.

CAA section 307(b)(1) governs judicial review of final actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” For locally or regionally applicable final actions that are based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion to decide whether to invoke the provision in (ii). 33

This action is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). In this action, in response to a court order, the EPA is amending on an interim basis the Good Neighbor Plan, 34 a nationally applicable rule that the EPA developed by applying a uniform legal interpretation and common, nationwide analytical methods to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of pollution ( i.e., “good neighbor” requirements) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Based on that nationwide analysis, the Good Neighbor Plan established FIP requirements for emissions sources in 23 states located across eight EPA Regions and ten federal judicial circuits. Given that this action amends an action implementing the good neighbor requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in a large number of states located across the country and given the interdependent nature of interstate pollution transport and the common core of knowledge and analysis involved in promulgating the FIP requirements, this action is a “nationally applicable” action within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1).

In the alternative, to the extent a court finds this action to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is based on a determination of “nationwide scope or effect” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). In this action, in response to a court order, the EPA is amending on an interim basis the Good Neighbor Plan, an action in which the EPA interpreted and applied CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on a common core of nationwide policy judgments and technical analysis concerning the interstate transport of pollutants throughout the continental United States. Based on that nationwide analysis, the Good Neighbor Plan established FIP requirements for emissions sources in 23 states located across eight EPA Regions and ten federal judicial circuits. In response to a court order, this action temporarily stays the implementation of the Good Neighbor Plan for emissions sources in eleven states located across four EPA Regions and six federal judicial circuits and also implements necessary measures to ensure the status quo is maintained with respect to existing obligations under previously issued regulations (that were themselves nationally applicable or based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect found and published by the EPA  35 ).

The Administrator finds that, like the Good Neighbor Plan, which it amends, this action is a matter on which national uniformity in judicial resolution of any petitions for review is desirable, to take advantage of the D.C. Circuit's administrative law expertise, and to facilitate the orderly development of the basic law under the Act. The Administrator also finds that consolidated review of this action in the D.C. Circuit will avoid piecemeal litigation in the regional circuits, further judicial economy, and eliminate the risk of inconsistent results for different states, and that a nationally consistent approach to the CAA's mandate concerning interstate transport of ozone pollution constitutes the best use of Agency resources.

For these reasons, this final action is nationally applicable or, alternatively, the Administrator is exercising the complete discretion afforded to him by the CAA and finds that this final action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) and is publishing that finding in the Federal Register . Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the D.C. Circuit by January 6, 2025.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

Prior to August 17, 2024, the customary practice in residential real estate transactions was for only the seller to pay a broker fee or commission. The seller's agent would then split the fee/commission with the buyer's agent upon sale of the home. As a result of changes to the residential real estate industry that went into effect on August 17, 2024, homebuyers now sign an agreement with their agent specifying the amount or rate of compensation the agent will receive, or how this amount will be determined. While sellers and their agents can still offer to pay a buyer's agent fee/commission, that exchange must be separately bargained for. This means that in some transactions, homebuyers will be required to pay the full buyer's agent fee/commission.

At present, eligible relocating Federal employees are reimbursed for the broker's fee or real estate commission they paid in the sale of their residence at the last official station pursuant to 41 CFR 302-11.200(a). However, 41 CFR 302-11.202(b) prohibits reimbursement for broker fees or commissions paid in connection with the purchase of a home at the new official station. Accordingly, OGP is temporarily waiving language in 41 CFR 302-11.200(a) and 302-11.202(b) to allow agencies to retroactively reimburse eligible relocating employees for buyer broker fees/real estate commissions incurred by an employee on and after August 17, 2024, in connection with the purchase of a residence at the new official station incident to their relocation.

GSA Bulletin FTR 25-03 can be viewed at https://www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletins.

This final rule describes how the Office of Head Start (OHS) officially delays the date for programs to meet the new competitive threshold for the Instructional Support domain of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS®) used to determine whether a Head Start agency will be subject to an open competition under the Designation Renewal System (DRS). The implementation date in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) that raises the CLASS® Instructional Support competitive threshold from 2.3 to 2.5 was August 1, 2025. This final rule officially delays this implementation date to August 1, 2027. The 2.3 competitive threshold that was established through regulation in 2020 has not yet been fully implemented due to a pause in CLASS® observations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the fiscal year 2024 (FY24) OHS monitoring cycle (2023-2024 program year) was the first time the 2.3 competitive threshold is fully implemented. The graduated approach established by the 2020 rule was put in place to allow sufficient time for grant recipients to make necessary quality improvements. However, the unexpected pause in CLASS® observations due to the pandemic shortened the 5-year implementation time frame to less than 2 years. This decision to delay the Instructional Support competitive threshold increase is also based on OHS' anticipated timeline for adopting an updated CLASS® tool—CLASS® 2nd Edition—and the associated training, technical assistance, and certification procedures required for both OHS and Head Start programs to implement this revised tool.

OHS provides grant awards to local public and private non-profit and for-profit agencies to provide comprehensive education and child development services to economically disadvantaged children, birth to age five, and their families, to help young children develop the skills they need to be successful in school. The HSPPS define requirements grant recipients must meet to operate high quality Head Start programs. The HSPPS also provide a structure for OHS to monitor and enforce quality standards. One of these requirements is that programs meet or exceed a threshold score on each of three domains measured by the CLASS®. The CLASS® is an observation instrument that assesses the quality of teacher-child interactions in center-based preschool classrooms. The three domains of the CLASS® include: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support. A grant recipient is subject to an open competition if their average score across all classrooms observed is below the competitive threshold on any of these three domains. In 2020, OHS published a final rule establishing an increased competitive threshold of 2.3 for the Instructional Support domain through July 31, 2025. However, this threshold is being fully implemented for the first time during the FY24 monitoring cycle, due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As described in 45 CFR 1304.11(c)(1)(iii), the competitive threshold for this domain would have further increased to 2.5 on August 1, 2025. This timeline was initially developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, to allow programs more time to ramp up the Instructional Support threshold for accountability. This notification officially extends the implementation deadline for the increased Instructional Support competitive threshold of 2.5 to August 1, 2027. Accordingly, the lower competitive threshold of 2.3 will be in place for CLASS® observations collected as part of monitoring reviews that occur through July 31, 2027.

The HSPPS requires that programs are observed using the CLASS® as part of the Head Start DRS (outlined in § 1304.11), and programs are required to meet specific thresholds for non-competitive grant renewal. While individual classrooms are observed and scored, OHS averages scores across all classrooms observed for a given program and calculates a program-level average score, which is used for competition determination. Through at least the fiscal year 2025 (FY25) monitoring cycle, OHS is using the 2008 version of the CLASS®, which consists of three domains: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support. The current thresholds for competition are 5, 5, and 2.3, respectively. Since OHS did not conduct CLASS® reviews for two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 final rule that established the new Instructional Support threshold of 2.3 was implemented for the first time in FY24. This final rule provides an extended timeframe for increasing the Instructional Support competitive threshold and gives OHS sufficient time to fully implement the 2.3 threshold before it increases to 2.5.

Further, in 2022, Teachstone, the company that owns the CLASS® tool, published CLASS® 2nd Edition. The second edition of the CLASS® tool is described as a more inclusive and equitable approach to observing adult-child interactions in the classroom. As a result, several, but not all, Head Start programs are opting to re-train program staff members on CLASS® 2nd Edition for their own professional development and classroom quality tracking purposes. This process requires additional time, as well as training and technical assistance support materials, to take the new certification test. However, for OHS to shift its entire oversight and technical assistance systems to CLASS® 2nd Edition, there needs to be a substantial scale-up of the training and certification processes that Teachstone and the Head Start technical assistance network provide. A number of these training supports have not yet been available at the capacity needed for a universal shift by OHS and the Head Start community to the updated measure. OHS understands the urgency with which its oversight system must adapt to CLASS® 2nd Edition. However, due to lack of adequate supports in place to train the entire Head Start system of observers and trainers, it will not be possible for OHS to transition to CLASS® 2nd Edition prior to the date originally set by the 2020 final rule for the increase in the Instructional Support competitive threshold (August 1, 2025).

We publish this final rule under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by section 641 (42 U.S.C. 9836) as amended by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-134). Under this section, the Secretary is required to develop a system for designation renewal Specifically, the Act requires the Secretary to “. . . modify, as necessary, program performance standards by regulation applicable to Head Start agencies and programs . . .”  1 This rule meets the statutory requirements Congress put forth in its 2007 bipartisan reauthorization of the Head Start and addresses Congress's mandate that called for the Secretary to review and revise the performance standards. The Secretary has determined that the modifications to performance standards contained in this regulation are appropriate and needed to effectuate the goals of the performance standards and the purposes of the Act.

In this final rule, OHS extends the timeline for the increased competitive threshold of 2.5 to August 1, 2027, to give programs more time to adjust to the Instructional Support competitive threshold of 2.3 that is being implemented for the first time in FY24, provide additional time to acclimate to the CLASS® 2nd Edition measure, and to strengthen ongoing technical assistance for program staff on the updated CLASS® measure.

This extended timeframe gives OHS additional time to consider the implications of adopting CLASS® 2nd Edition universally and determine the most appropriate plan for this change, and to ensure that grant recipients have sufficient notice to adjust to and adopt this revised tool. Grant recipients will be provided ample notice from OHS before it begins using CLASS® 2nd Edition for monitoring purposes. Switching Head Start monitoring and technical assistance to use CLASS® 2nd Edition should not be implemented in the same year as the change in the competitive threshold for Instructional Support. This will place undue burden on programs and the Head Start monitoring and technical assistance system.

Extending the implementation date for the increased competitive threshold for the Instructional Support domain also allows OHS to prepare relevant program staff and members of the Head Start Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) network to be responsive to program needs for TTA as they make the transition to CLASS® 2nd Edition. Re-training the entire Head Start TTA network on CLASS 2nd Edition requires a multiple-day, in-person or online training and a certification test where staff must score within a specific range to pass. OHS anticipates needing the time that this extension allows to ensure its network of observers and trainers are certified on CLASS® 2nd Edition.

ACF recognizes that some Head Start programs are already starting to re-train their staff and several members of the TTA network have done so as well. At the same time, programs are learning and understanding what the new CLASS® 2nd Edition scores mean and how to interpret them, and the TTA network is learning how to provide follow-up TTA to support programs once they receive their new scores. The longer implementation window for the increased Instructional Support threshold allows programs and OHS to adjust programming, policies, and procedures to be responsive to this changing landscape.

ACF is changing the implementation date for the instructional support competitive threshold domain increase to 2.5 from August 1, 2025, to August 1, 2027.

When engaging in rulemaking, HHS will ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 2 However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if we find, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporate a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice. HHS finds good cause to waive public comment under section 553(b) of the APA because it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide for public comment in this instance. The existing CLASS® competitive thresholds for Head Start programs continue to be in effect for competition determinations. As such, the delayed implementation date poses no harm or burden to programs or the public. A period for public comment would have only extended programs' concerns about meeting the new threshold by the previous implementation date of August 1, 2025.

We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13132, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more, or adversely affecting in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in each case. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this final rule does not identify economic impacts that exceed the threshold for significance under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.

Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA) allows Congress to review “major” rules issued by Federal agencies before the rules take effect, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a). The CRA defines a major rule as one that has resulted, or is likely to result, in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets, see 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action is not a major rule because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 605(b) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires federal agencies to determine, to the extent feasible, a rule's impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain their regulatory approach. The term “small entities,” as defined in the RFA, 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. Under this definition, some Head Start grant recipients may be small entities. We consider a rule to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities if it has at least a three percent impact on revenue on at least five percent of small entities. However, the Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule simply delays the date by which the threshold will increase for the CLASS® Instructional Support domain that would trigger competition for a Head Start grant recipient. We do not expect increased costs for recipients due to this delayed implementation date; therefore, we do not expect there to be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes estimates of anticipated impacts, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million, using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule will not result in expenditures that meet or exceed this amount. Head Start grant recipients receive over $12 billion annually in Federal funding to implement the requirements of the program, including changes as a result of this final rule.

Executive Order 13132 requires Federal agencies to consult with State and local government officials if they develop regulatory policies with federalism implications. Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government close to the people. This final rule will not have substantial direct impact on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency determines a policy or regulation negatively affects family well-being, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. ACF believes it is not necessary to prepare a family policymaking assessment, see Public Law 105-277, because the action it takes in this final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., minimizes government-imposed burden on the public. In keeping with the notion that government information is a valuable asset, it also is intended to improve the practical utility, quality, and clarity of information collected, maintained, and disclosed.

The PRA requires that agencies obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, which includes issuing an OMB number and expiration date, before requesting most types of information from the public. Regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 implemented the provisions of the PRA and §  1320.3 of this part defines a “collection of information,” “information,” and “burden.” PRA defines “information” as any statement or estimate of fact or opinion, regardless of form or format, whether numerical, graphic, or narrative form, and whether oral or maintained on paper, electronic, or other media (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This includes requests for information to be sent to the government, such as forms, written reports and surveys, recordkeeping requirements, and third-party or public disclosures (5 CFR 1320.3(c)). “Burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to collect, maintain, or disclose information. This action does not include any new information collection requirements or changes to existing information collection requirements.

As summarized previously, the 2.3 competitive threshold for the CLASS® Instructional Support domain that was established through regulation in 2020 has not yet been fully implemented due to a pause in CLASS® observations through OHS monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the FY24 OHS monitoring cycle (2023-2024 program year) was the first year in which the 2.3 competitive threshold was fully implemented with grant recipients. The graduated approach established by the 2020 final rule was put in place to allow sufficient time for grant recipients to make necessary quality improvement in the Instructional Support domain (a domain in which early childhood programs nationally tend to score lower, relative to other domains of the CLASS®). Increasing the competitive threshold to 2.5 in August 2025 does not allow sufficient time for the phase in approach envisioned in the 2020 final rule.

In addition, OHS currently uses the 2008 version of the CLASS®. But in 2022, the developer of the CLASS® tool released an updated version called CLASS® 2nd Edition. This updated version is marketed as a more equitable and inclusive measure of teacher-child interactions in classroom settings. As a result, many Head Start programs are already re-training staff members on CLASS® 2nd Edition; this process requires additional technical assistance and training support materials, multi-day training workshops, and additional time to take the new certification test, as well as significant costs. A number of these supports have not yet been available at the capacity or scale needed for a universal shift by OHS's monitoring system to the updated version of the tool. In addition, it will take time to ensure all OHS reviewers are certified in the new edition, and to revise OHS monitoring processes, materials, and training to reflect CLASS® 2nd Edition. Accordingly, OHS has not yet adopted this new version of the tool for federal monitoring purposes and is continuing to use the 2008 version of CLASS® through at least the FY25 monitoring cycle. However, we do intend to transition to CLASS® 2nd Edition in the future, and we want to provide programs with an adequate adjustment period with the new tool before making another system-wide change by increasing the competitive threshold for Instructional Support.

There are approximately 1,900 grants in Head Start. Absent this final rule, the competitive threshold for the CLASS® Instructional Support threshold will increase from a 2.3 to a 2.5 on August 1, 2025. During the 2025-2026 program year, we estimate that approximately 280 grants will receive a CLASS® review from OHS. During the 2026-2027 program year, we estimate that approximately 400 grants will a receive a CLASS® review from OHS. Based on OHS monitoring data from CLASS® reviews conducted during the 2023-2024 program year, we estimate that approximately seven percent of grants reviewed in a given year would receive a score below 2.3 on CLASS® Instructional Support and approximately 13 percent would receive a score below 2.5. If we apply these percentages to the expected number of CLASS® reviews to be conducted in the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 program years, we observe the following approximate numbers of grants that would be triggered to compete under DRS due to their CLASS® Instructional Support score, either in the presence or absence of this final rule.

In other words, with this final rule, approximately 40 total fewer grants would be designated to compete due to their CLASS® Instructional Support scores received as a part of OHS monitoring during the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 program years. The cost for competition associated with completing a competitive application is estimated at $3,538 per applicant. This assumption includes 60 hours per competitive application at a cost of approximately $58.96 per hour in staff time (we multiply an hourly wage of approximately $29.48 by two to account for fringe benefits). Applications would likely be completed by a combination of the Head Start assistant director and other managers in an early childhood program ( i.e., child development manager or family and community partnership manager). We base the average hourly wage for these positions on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Code 11-9031. We then multiply $3,538 per applicant by 80 to account for the 40 incumbent grant recipients applying for funds as well as 40 nonincumbent applicants for those service areas. This results in a baseline estimated cost of $283,040 for these 40 grant recipients to complete competitive applications if they did in fact have to compete, as well as 40 additional applicants. With this final rule, these baseline costs would not apply and are therefore cost savings in this analysis.

With this final rule, those 40 grant recipients that would have been triggered to compete due to receiving a CLASS® Instructional Support score below 2.5 (but not below 2.3) would instead need to complete an noncompetitive grant application for a continuing annual award. We assume it takes approximately 33 hours of staff time to complete a noncompetitive application. Using the same assumptions as above for hourly wage, we estimate that it costs approximately $1,946 per grant to complete a noncompetitive application. We multiply this by 40 grants, which results in a total cost of approximately $77,840 for these grant recipients to complete a noncompetitive continuation application. Taking this cost into account, the total cost savings associated with this final rule is approximately $205,200. This includes cost savings to those entities that are not existing Head Start recipients as there would be no funding opportunity to which they would submit a competitive application.

A qualitative opportunity cost for this new rule is fewer opportunities for entities that are not existing Head Start grant recipients to be able to compete and potentially grow as an early childhood provider in their community, for the 40 communities where grants were not designated for competition due to potentially low CLASS® Instructional Support scores. There is also a potential qualitative cost of children continuing to be served by grant recipients who may be providing lower-quality classroom learning environments that would have led to competition. However, for all the reasons summarized in the preamble of this final rule, ACF believes there is an added benefit of existing grant recipients not experiencing undue stress and potential increased financial burden associated with the competitive threshold increasing from 2.3 to 2.5 in August 2025. Additionally, these grant recipients will be able to continue to access and receive support through OHS's extensive TTA system, to facilitate continued quality improvement in classroom quality care and service provision for children and families. This RIA analyzes a 2-year time horizon covering FY 2026 and FY 2027.

Overall, ACF does not believe there will be a significant economic impact from this regulatory action since this final rule only delays the implementation date by two years for the CLASS® Instructional Support competitive threshold.

Jeff Hild, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families, performing the delegable duties of the Assistant Secretary, approved this document on October 8, 2024.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the ACF amends 45 CFR part 1304 as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirement in 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) on September 26, 2024. The rule was adopted in the Second Text Blocking Report and Order, FCC 23-107, 89 FR 5098, January 26, 2024. The rule's effective date, accordingly, is January 27, 2025, which is 12 months after the rule was published in the Federal Register . The Commission publishes this document in the Federal Register as an announcement of the compliance date of the rule. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 3-317, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-0519. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on September 26, 2024, for the information collection requirement contained in 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirement in 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(9) is 3060-0519. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0519.

OMB Approval Date: September 26, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2027.

Title: Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, Implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: 6,000.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,000 respondents × 1 response = 6,000 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours per response.

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Obligation to Respond: Sellers who are required to comply with the prior express written consent requirements of the TCPA, and who are not currently obtaining one-to-one consent for telemarketing robocalls/robotexts will need to comply with the revised rule. Sellers who are already obtaining one-to-one consent for such calls/texts or who are not required to comply with TCPA prior express written consent requirements will not have to make any changes to comply with the new rule.

Total Annual Burden: 6,000 respondents × 1 response × 8 hours/response = 48,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: 6,000 responses × 8 hours/response × $89.04 per hour = $4,273,920.

Annual “In-House” Cost : The Commission assumes that respondents use “in-house” personnel to update websites to ensure compliance. The national average wage for a web and digital interface designer, including benefits, is comparable to a federal employee GS-15/5. Thus, the Commission estimates respondents cost to be about $89.04 per hour to comply with the requirement.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: To better protect consumers from unwanted and illegal calls and texts, the Commission adopted a rule to make it unequivocally clear that texters and callers must obtain a consumer's prior express written consent to robocall or robotext the consumer soliciting their business, from one seller at a time. This new rule prohibits abuse of consumer consent by comparison shopping and other websites. In addition to the one-to-one consent requirement, the Commission also requires that the consent must be in response to a clear and conspicuous disclosure to the consumer and that the content of the robotexts and robocalls must be logically and topically associated with the website where the consumer gave consent. The TCPA and the Commission's existing rules already place the burden of proof on the texter or caller to prove that they have obtained consent that satisfies federal laws and regulations. This new information collection does not change that obligation but may require website operators, including lead generators and comparison shopping sites, to modify their sites to ensure that one-to-one consent is properly collected. The rule only applies to callers that are required to obtain prior express written consent from consumers under the TCPA. Some respondents may already be obtaining one-to-one consent from consumers and would not incur any implementation burdens. Other respondents may not need to obtain TCPA prior express written consent.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 76.310 on September 23, 2024.

The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-1328. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on September 23, 2024, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.310.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1330.

OMB Approval Date: September 23, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2027.

Title: Section 76.310, Truth in Billing and Advertising.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 400 respondents; 54,000,400 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.0001 hours-0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 303, 316, 335(a), 632(b), and 642 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 316, 335(a), 552(b), and 562.

Total Annual Burden: 5,600 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: The collection will advance the public interest and safety because the “all-in” rule requires cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers to specify the “all-in” price for video programming in their promotional materials that includes pricing information and on subscribers' bills; the “all-in” rule is intended to increase transparency and promote competition in the video programming marketplace by allowing consumers to make better informed choices among the ranges of video programming service options available to them.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows: