Authority

Title V, Section 504 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1474.

The RHS offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. The Agency offer loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single- and multifamily housing, child-care centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, housing for farm laborers and much more. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, state and federal government agencies, and local communities.

The RHS Single Family Housing Direct Loans and Grants Program (SFHDLGP) Division implements the Section 504 loan/grant program under 7 CFR part 3550 with the objective to assist very low-income owner occupants of single-family homes in rural areas repair or rehabilitate their homes. Loan funds are available for repairs to improve or modernize a home, make it safer or more sanitary, or remove health and safety hazards. The eligibility requirements, as described in 7 CFR 3550.103, include that a homeowner (1) be unable to secure financial assistance at reasonable terms and conditions from a non-Agency source; (2) lack the personal resources to meet their needs; and (3) can demonstrate the ability to repay the Section 504 loan. For homeowners 62 years old and over at the time of application, grant funds are available to correct health or safety hazards, or remodel dwellings to make them accessible to a household member with a disability.

RHS may authorize limited demonstration (pilot) programs to test new approaches to offering housing under the statutory authority granted to the Secretary, as set forth in section 506(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1476(b)). Additional demonstration program authority for regulations contained in 7 CFR part 3550 is provided at 7 CFR 3550.7. Any program requirements that are statutory will remain in effect.

To align with current market payment requirements and further utilize program loan funding, RHS has determined to test and evaluate the regulatory requirements under the new pilot program for the Single-Family Housing Section 504 Home Repair Loan and Grant program under the pilot program authority provided at section 506(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1476(b)):

The pilot program allows participants to use Section 504 loan or grant funds for the payment of construction materials prior to site delivery and without the need for the contractor to provide a surety bond. This component of the demonstration program will permit SFHDLGP to evaluate 7 CFR 1924.6(a)(12)(v)(C) which requires delivery of materials prior to payment and a surety bond. Under the demonstration program, payment in full may be made directly to the material supplier so the order can be placed or to the contractor upon receipt of paid invoice. Contractors expect up to fifty percent down prior to ordering materials or beginning work, and applicants struggle to find contractors that will work within the Agency's payment terms. This waiver is a step closer to meeting contractor expectations while still protecting applicants from fraudulent contractors that might take downpayment funds and never complete the job.

(1) Eligble participants—Eligible participants in the Section 504 Home Repair Loan and Grant program must abide by the regulatory requirements outlined in 7 CFR 3550. (2) Eligible States and Territories—The following twenty-five (25) States and U.S. Territories are selected based on program usage, involvement in the Rural Partners Network, and to provide wide geographic and historic production variation for the pilot program: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The regulatory waivers for this pilot program contain no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0575-0172 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

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

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; or the 711 Relay Service.

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

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

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

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

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

The CFPB is amending the regulation text and official interpretations for Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update the dollar amounts of various thresholds that it must adjust annually to reflect the annual percentage change in the CPI as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Specifically, for open-end consumer credit plans under TILA, the threshold that triggers requirements to disclose minimum interest charges will remain unchanged at $1.00 in 2025. For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages in 2025 will be $26,968. The adjusted points-and-fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages in 2025 will be $1,348. For qualified mortgages (QMs) under the General QM loan definition in § 1026.43(e)(2), the thresholds for the spread between the annual percentage rate (APR) and the average prime offer rate (APOR)  1 in 2025 will be: 2.25 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $134,841; 3.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $80,905 but less than $134,841; 6.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount less than $80,905; 6.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction secured by a manufactured home with a loan amount less than $134,841; 3.5 or more percentage points for a subordinate-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $80,905; or 6.5 or more percentage points for a subordinate-lien covered transaction with a loan amount less than $80,905. For all categories of QMs, the thresholds for total points and fees in 2025 will be 3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $134,841; $4,045 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $80,905 but less than $134,841; 5 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $26,968 but less than $80,905; $1,348 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $16,855 but less than $26,968; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $16,855. 2

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300 and -400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2024 (89 FR 60836). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that flight control rigging tolerances could result in spoiler deflection not reaching the minimal level required to engage the MONFD used by the A/T system. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require changing certain wire bundles, installing a new housing assembly, removing the mechanical aileron force limiter (MAFL), doing an inspection or records check to determine if certain flight control computers (FCCs) are installed, and performing applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the spoiler deflection to engage the MONFD, which could lead to significant throttle split, leading to asymmetric thrust and the subsequent lack of autothrottle disengagement, uncommanded roll, and consequent loss of control of the airplane and reduced ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

The FAA received a comment from Aviation Partners Boeing. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect compliance with the proposed actions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that STC ST01219SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-22A1399 RB, dated April 13, 2023. This material specifies procedures for changing certain wire bundles, installing a new housing assembly, removing the MAFL, doing an inspection or records check to determine if certain FCCs are installed (FCCs that have an electronic aileron limiter (EAL) revision), and performing applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include installing new FCCs or re-installing kept FCCs (the installation includes doing specified tests and applicable corrective actions until the tests are passed).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 110 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection/records review. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-21-08, Amendment 39-22580 (88 FR 77889, November 14, 2023) (AD 2023-21-08). AD 2023-21-08 applied to certain RRD Model Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-AE, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-CE, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H engines. AD 2023-21-08 required revisions to the ALS of the operator's existing approved AMP as specified in EASA AD 2022-0259, dated December 20, 2022. The FAA issued AD 2023-21-08 to prevent the failure of critical rotating parts.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2024 (89 FR 65270). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0062, dated March 6, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0062) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the manufacturer published a revised TLM introducing new or more restrictive tasks and limitations. These new or more restrictive tasks and limitations include updating Direct Accumulation Counting data files.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain none of the requirements of AD 2023-21-08. The NPRM proposed to require revising the ALS of the operator's existing approved AMP, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0062. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the failure of rotating parts.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2014.

The FAA received a comment from The Boeing Company, who supported the NPRM without change.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0062, which specifies instructions for accomplishing the actions specified in the applicable TLM, including performing maintenance tasks, replacing life-limited parts, and revising the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the TLM.

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

Where EASA AD 2024-0062 specifies revising the approved AMP within 12 months after the effective date of EASA AD 2024-0062, this AD requires revising the ALS of the existing approved aircraft maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 28 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-24-06, Amendment 39-22623 (88 FR 89290, December 27, 2023) (AD 2023-24-06) for certain RRD Model Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 engines. AD 2023-24-06 required revising the ALS of the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts. The FAA issued AD 2023-24-06 to prevent the failure of critical rotating parts.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2024 (89 FR 60841). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0195, dated November 9, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0195) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the manufacturer published a revised engine TLM introducing new or more restrictive tasks and limitations. These new or more restrictive tasks and limitations include updating declared lives of certain critical parts.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain none of the requirements of AD 2023-24-06. The NPRM proposed to require revising the ALS of the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0195. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the failure of rotating parts, which, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1899.

The FAA received a comment from The Boeing Company who supported the NPRM without change.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0195, which specifies instructions for accomplishing the actions specified in the applicable TLM, including performing maintenance tasks, replacing life-limited parts, and revising the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the limitations, tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals described in the TLM.

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

Where EASA AD 2023-0195 specifies revising the approved aircraft maintenance programme (AMP) within 12 months after the effective date of EASA AD 2023-0195, this AD requires revising the ALS of the existing approved aircraft maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-8, 737-9, and 737-8200 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2024 (89 FR 17346). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a non-conforming installation of flight spoiler control wire bundles that led to unintended spoiler motion, including one instance of flight spoiler hardover. Further investigation identified the potential for simultaneous time-limited hardovers of more than one flight spoiler on the same wing, which can exceed full lateral control capability leading to loss of control of the airplane. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the clearance between the spoiler control wire bundles and the adjacent structure, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for improper clearance between the spoiler control wire bundles and the adjacent structure. Improper clearance can lead to damage to the wire bundle, causing unintentional spoiler motion and consequent loss of control of the airplane. A hardover of more than one flight spoiler on the same wing can exceed full lateral control capability leading to loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from seven commenters: The Boeing Company, United Airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, International, and four individuals, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from three commenters: SunExpress Airlines, The Foundation for Aviation Safety, and an individual. The following summarizes the comments received on the NPRM and provides the FAA's responses.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety (the Foundation) requested  1 that the FAA issue the AD as an immediately adopted rule (IAR)  2 with a compliance time of 30 days instead of the proposed 36-month compliance time. The Foundation's rationale referenced the service history of this model, the FAA's use of what the Foundation described as an unvalidated assumption about wear rates, the presence of a potentially catastrophic single failure condition, and the required inspection is estimated to take nine hours  3 per airplane.

In addition, an individual requested the FAA require “immediate repair of the defects on the identified aircraft” due to recent Boeing failures.

The FAA does not agree with the request to issue the AD as an IAR, or to shorten the compliance time. After conducting a risk analysis, the FAA did not find it necessary to issue an IAR with a shorter compliance time, but determined that an NPRM, which allowed the opportunity for public comment, was appropriate.

As part of their argument for an IAR and shortened compliance time, the Foundation stated that the potential failure condition is the result of a single point of failure (the chafed wire to a spoiler actuator), which is incorrect. The NPRM was issued to address the potential catastrophic event of simultaneous time-limited  4 hardovers of more than one flight spoiler on the same wing, which would require two separate specific wires to short to ground almost simultaneously.

To support their argument for the IAR, the Foundation also questioned the FAA's assumptions regarding the use of unvalidated wire “wear rates” to support the compliance times in the NPRM. The FAA concurs that “wear rate” is highly dependent upon the specific installation and operational environment of the wire bundle in question. However, the FAA did not use Boeing's “wear rate” in developing the risk analysis as suggested by the commenter. Instead, the FAA's analysis incorporated feedback from 737 MAX operators that had performed the inspections called out in Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-293-A, dated May 17, 2022, which indicated no findings of wire chafing in over 650 Model 737 MAX airplanes. This, combined with the FAA risk analysis, showed that an NPRM was appropriate.

SunExpress Airlines requested that Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-27-293-B, dated May 23, 2022, serve as alternative method of compliance to paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD. The commenter asserted that the Work Instructions of Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-27-293-B fulfills the requirements stated in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1325 RB, dated July 14, 2023 (Alert RB 737-27A1325 RB).

The FAA agrees that accomplishing Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-27-293-B, dated May 23, 2022, provides some of the inspection and corrective action instructions called out in Alert RB 737-27A1325 RB. However, the FAA disagrees with giving credit for paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD because the scope of the inspections in Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-27-293-B, dated May 23, 2022, does not include inspections for the outboard clamp locations and does not have certain of the defined clearance requirements of the Requirements Bulletin. Paragraph (i) of this AD allows the commenter to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for the actions in the Service Letter that are duplicated in the Requirements Bulletin.

An individual requested that the FAA issue additional guidance to assist in identifying other airplane models that may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

Such additional guidance is unnecessary. The FAA has worked with Boeing to identify the affected airplanes and those airplanes have been listed in Alert RB 737-27A1325 RB. The agency has also verified with Boeing that the actions and practices identified in Alert RB 737-27A1325 RB have been incorporated in Boeing's production processes at a specific airplane line number, ensuring this unsafe condition does not exist on airplanes delivered from that line number forward.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-27A1325 RB, dated July 14, 2023. This material specifies procedures for spoiler control wire bundles clearance measurement and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include a detailed inspection of the spoiler control wire bundles and adjacent structure for chafing damage, repair of any spoiler control wire bundles and any structural damage, and adjustment of the spoiler control wire bundles to ensure clearance requirements are met.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 207 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2024 (89 FR 65264). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-42, dated June 19, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there have been multiple reports in service of missing or damaged inboard flap seal plates. An investigation revealed a premature fatigue failure mode of the inboard flap seal plates. Left uncorrected, an inboard flap seal plate may partially or totally detach. Under certain flight conditions, a missing inboard flap seal plate could lead to excessive buffeting and vibration, and consequent damage to the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracks of the attaching angles of the inboard flap seal plates and replacement. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2015.

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

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

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletins 700-27-5509 and 700-27-6509, both Revision 01, both dated May 5, 2023. This material specifies procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for cracks of the attaching angles of the inboard flap seal plates and replacing the inboard flap seal plates if any crack is detected. This material also specifies procedures for replacing both existing inboard flap seal plates with structurally more robust redesigned components. The replacement actions include a detailed visual inspection for damage (including signs of failure, cracking, and deformation) of the flap inboard closing ribs and trailing edges, an eddy current or liquid penetrant inspection for cracks running out of the flap inboard closing rib holes common to the outboard stiffener and angle, and repair for cracks and other damage. The replacement would eliminate the need for the repetitive detailed inspections. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2024 (89 FR 45610). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-64, dated September 18, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that reports have been received indicating that the pylon-to-wing area motive flow flexible fuel line assemblies may have been installed incorrectly, potentially resulting in a twist to the motive flow fuel line.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the motive flow fuel line assemblies and corrective actions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-64. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a possible abrasion of the fuel line causing a fuel leak; if not addressed, the electrical harness connectors in the wing area could be a potential ignition source and pose a risk of fire.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1474.

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

The FAA received an additional comment from Delta Airlines. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Delta requested revising paragraph (h)(3) by removing the word “flexible” and revising certain punctuation. Delta stated the term “flexible” is used only when referring to the flexible-hose assembly installed in the shroud assembly. Therefore, the flexible-hose assembly and the shroud assembly are subassemblies of the fuel motive-flow tube assembly.

The FAA agrees that the term “flexible” should be removed in reference to the entire motive flow fuel line assemblies since the service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-64 requires replacement of the fuel motive-flow tube assembly if damage is found on either the flexible-hose assembly or the shroud assembly.

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

The FAA reviewed AD CF-2023-64, dated September 18, 2023. This material specifies procedures for a general visual inspection of the left and right motive flow flexible fuel line assemblies for twisted or damaged fuel lines or damaged shrouds, and replacement of motive flow fuel line assemblies with twisted or damaged fuel lines or damaged shrouds.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 93 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega, AK.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-0183 in the Federal Register (89 FR 67915; August 22, 2024) proposing to modify Class E airspace at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E5 airspace areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chenega Bay Airport, Chenega, AK.

The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at the airport within a 2-mile radius is modified to only contain the arrival procedure to the final approach fix (FAF), and to contain the departure procedure starting at JODRO—given that arrivals are visual flight rules (VFR) after the FAF, and departures are VFR until reaching JODRO.

In addition, the Chenega, AK, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth is extended to the north of the airport to contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface until reaching the FAF.

Finally, the FAA is modifying the airport's associated legal description to update the city name within the text header from “Chenega Bay, AK” to “Chenega, AK.”

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

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

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

Pursuant to Section 304(b) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), NOAA published in the Federal Register notification of the designation of CHNMS and final regulations to implement the designation on October 16, 2024 (89 FR 83554). As required by the NMSA, the designation and regulations would become effective following the close of a review period of 45 days of continuous session of Congress beginning on the date of publication (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)(1)). The regulations are effective as of November 30, 2024.

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during July, August, and September 2024, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval under the Freedom of Information Act. These documents, along with marketing exclusivity and patent information, may be obtained at Animal Drugs @FDA: https://animaldrugsatfda.fda.gov/adafda/views/#/search.

Med-Pharmex, Inc., 2727 Thompson Creek Rd., Pomona, CA 91767-1861 (drug labeler code 054925) requested that FDA withdraw approval of the two NADAs listed in table 2 because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these actions.

Cephazone Pharma, LLC, 250 East Bonita Ave., Pomona, CA 91767 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, ANADA 200-420 for Ceftiofur Sodium Sterile Powder to Dechra Veterinary Products LLC, 7015 College Blvd., Suite 525, Overland Park, KS 66211. As provided in the regulatory text, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect this action.

FDA is making the following amendments to improve the accuracy and readability of the animal drug regulations:

• 21 CFR 510.600(c) is amended to remove Cephazone Pharma, LLC and Provetica LLC from the lists of sponsors of approved applications as these firms are no longer the sponsor of an approved application.

• 21 CFR 520.522 is amended to reflect a 2023 change of sponsorship for cyclosporine oral solution.

• 21 CFR 520.2090 is amended to revise the description of a tablet containing sarolaner, moxidectin, and pyrantel.

• 21 CFR 522.2470 is being amended to reflect previous approval of additional indications for use of tiletamine and zolazepam.

This final rule is issued under section 512(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(i)). Although deemed a rule pursuant to the FD&C Act, this document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a “rule of particular applicability” and is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows:

This document amends the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 752 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding a partner's share of a recourse partnership liability (final regulations).

The final regulations are issued under the express delegation of authority under section 7805(a) of the Code, which provides that “[t]he Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of [the Code], including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.”

Section 752(a) provides, in general, that an increase in a partner's share of partnership liabilities (or an increase in a partner's individual liabilities by reason of the assumption by the partner of partnership liabilities) will be considered a contribution of money by the partner to the partnership. Conversely, section 752(b) provides that a decrease in a partner's share of partnership liabilities (or a decrease in a partner's individual liabilities by reason of the assumption by the partnership of the individual liabilities) will be considered a distribution of money to the partner by the partnership.

When determining a partner's share of partnership liabilities, the existing regulations under section 752 (existing §§ 1.752-1 through 1.752-3) distinguish between two categories of liabilities—recourse and nonrecourse. In general, a partnership liability is recourse to the extent that a partner or related person bears the economic risk of loss (EROL) as provided in existing § 1.752-2 and nonrecourse to the extent that no partner or related person bears the EROL under existing § 1.752-2. See existing § 1.752-1(a)(1) and (2). A partner bears the EROL for a partnership liability if the partner or related person: (1) has a payment obligation as provided in existing § 1.752-2(b) (except as provided in existing § 1.752-2(d)(2)); (2) is a lender to the partnership as provided in existing § 1.752-2(c) (except as provided in existing § 1.752-2(d)(1)); (3) guarantees payment of interest on a partnership nonrecourse liability as described in existing § 1.752-2(e); or (4) pledges property as security for a partnership liability as provided in existing § 1.752-2(h).

On December 16, 2013, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published in the Federal Register (78 FR 76092) a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-136984-12) that would amend the existing regulations under section 752 relating to a partner's share of a recourse partnership liability and the rules for related persons (proposed regulations). The provisions of the proposed regulations are explained in greater detail in the preamble to the proposed regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS received two comments responding to the proposed regulations. A public hearing on the proposed regulations was not requested or held.

The Treasury Department and the IRS are mindful that the proposed regulations were issued approximately eleven years ago. However, no intervening legislative changes regarding allocations of partnership liabilities have been made, no subsequent changes to regulatory rules concerning allocations of partnership liabilities address the issues in the proposed regulations, and the issues raised by the commenters continue to remain relevant. For these reasons, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that a new notice of proposed rulemaking or a further opportunity for public comment would be unlikely to generate different comments. Furthermore, issuing the same rules again as a notice of proposed rulemaking would unnecessarily delay further this rulemaking to the continued detriment of taxpayers desiring to apply these rules to allocate their partnership liabilities.

Accordingly, after full consideration of the comments received, these final regulations adopt the proposed regulations with certain modifications in response to the comments described in the Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions.

Under existing § 1.752-2(a), a partner's share of a recourse partnership liability equals the portion of that liability, if any, for which the partner or related person bears the EROL. The proposed regulations would have provided a proportionality rule to determine how partners share a partnership liability when multiple partners bear the EROL for the same liability (overlapping EROL). Under the proportionality rule, the EROL borne by a partner would be the amount of the partnership liability (or portion thereof) multiplied by a fraction obtained by dividing the amount of EROL borne by the partner by the sum of the EROL borne by all partners with respect to that liability.

One commenter suggested that the final regulations should not adopt the proportionality rule but should instead allocate liabilities among partners with overlapping EROL in a manner analogous to the manner in which a nonrecourse liability is allocated under § 1.752-3. Specifically, the commenter suggested that such liabilities should be allocated in a manner consistent with the partner's interest in partnership profits. The commenter stated that this allocation approach more closely reflects the partners' economic arrangements and permits losses attributable to the liability to be allocated among the partners without any of the losses being suspended under section 704(d) of the Code.

Under the existing section 752 regulations, a recourse partnership liability is shared among partners that bear the EROL for the liability. Conversely, with a nonrecourse partnership liability, no partner bears economic risk with respect to the liability; therefore, the liability is generally allocated in accordance with a partner's share of partnership profits. Adopting a framework applicable to a nonrecourse partnership liability for purposes of determining how a recourse partnership liability should be shared under section 752 could cause the liability to be allocated disproportionally among those partners depending upon their profit-sharing ratios even though the partners bear the same amount of EROL for the liability. The proportionality rule provides a reasonable approach in addressing how a recourse partnership liability should be shared when partners have overlapping EROL. Therefore, the final regulations do not adopt the commenter's suggestion.

Another commenter requested clarification on the effect of local law and separate agreements between partners in determining whether partners have overlapping EROL. Under existing § 1.752-2(b)(3), all statutory and contractual obligations relating to a partnership liability are taken into account for purposes of determining a partner's EROL. Therefore, the proportionality rule applies to cases in which partners have overlapping EROL after taking into account all statutory and contractual obligations relating to the partnership liability. The final regulations illustrate in § 1.752-2(f)(9) that these obligations are considered in determining whether the partners have overlapping EROL.

Another overlapping EROL issue under section 752 relates to tiered partnerships. The proposed regulations would have provided guidance on how a lower-tier partnership (LTP) must allocate a liability in cases in which a partner of an upper-tier partnership (UTP) is also a partner of the LTP and that partner bears the EROL with respect to the LTP's liability. Under the proposed regulations, the LTP would be required to allocate the liability directly to the partner.

One commenter, while acknowledging that the rule in the proposed regulations provides certainty and is administrable, expressed concerns that this rule could cause the partner in both the UTP and the LTP to recognize gain. The commenter recommended that the final regulations allow the LTP to allocate the liability in any reasonable manner between the partner and the UTP. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. The rule in the proposed regulations is the most administrable, especially in a case in which an LTP may not be aware that one of its partners is also a partner in a UTP that is removed from the LTP. Therefore, under the final regulations, an LTP must allocate the liability directly to the partner that bears the EROL with respect to the LTP's liability. Section § 1.752-2(i)(2) of the final regulations also clarifies how the tiered partnership rule applies in a case in which there is overlapping EROL among unrelated partners as provided in § 1.752-2(a)(2). Finally, the final regulations add an example to illustrate the application of the proportionality rule when there are tiered partnerships.

Another commenter suggested that a gap might exist between §§ 1.704-2 and 1.752-2 concerning partner nonrecourse deductions when a partner of a UTP (that is not also a partner of an LTP) bears the EROL for a liability of the LTP. Existing § 1.704-2(i) requires the partnership to allocate partner nonrecourse deductions to the partner that bears the EROL. Existing § 1.704-2(k)(5) treats an LTP's liability that is treated as a UTP's liability under § 1.752-4(a) also as a liability of the UTP for purpose of applying the rules under § 1.704-2(i). Under existing § 1.752-2(i), the LTP allocates its liability to the UTP when a partner of the UTP bears the EROL for the LTP's liability. The commenter asserted that, although existing § 1.752-2(i) requires the LTP to allocate the liability to the UTP, existing § 1.704-2 does not explicitly direct the LTP to allocate partner nonrecourse deductions attributable to that liability to the UTP. Thus, in the commenter's view, the existing rules do not treat the UTP as bearing the EROL for the LTP's liability for purposes of § 1.704-2(i). Contrary to this commenter's suggestion, existing §§ 1.704-2(i) and 1.704-2(k)(5) implicitly require an LTP to allocate partner nonrecourse deductions attributable to a liability of the LTP to a UTP if a partner in the UTP bears the EROL for the LTP's liability. To eliminate any uncertainty, the final regulations add a sentence to § 1.704-2(k)(5) to clarify that a UTP is treated as bearing the EROL for an LTP's liability that is treated as the UTP's liability under § 1.752-4(a). Therefore, partner nonrecourse deductions attributable to the LTP's liability are allocated to the UTP under § 1.704-2(i).

As previously stated, existing § 1.752-2(a) generally provides that a partner's share of a recourse partnership liability equals the portion of that liability, if any, for which the partner or related person bears the EROL. A partner bears the EROL for a partnership liability if the partner or related person has a payment obligation under § 1.752-2(b), is a lender as provided in § 1.752-2(c), guarantees payment of interest on a partnership nonrecourse liability as described in § 1.752-2(e), or pledges property as a security as provided in § 1.752-2(h). In describing when a partner bears the EROL for a partnership liability, the proposed regulations inadvertently failed to include situations under § 1.752-2(e) and (h). A commenter also suggested that references to § 1.752-2(c) relating to when a partner or related person is the lender take into account a de minimis rule under § 1.752-2(d)(1). Existing § 1.752-2(d)(1) provides that the general rule in § 1.752-2(c)(1) does not apply if a partner or related person whose interest (directly or indirectly through one or more partnerships and including the interest of any related person) in each item of partnership income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit for every taxable year that the partner is a partner in the partnership is 10 percent or less, makes a loan to the partnership that constitutes qualified nonrecourse financing within the meaning of section 465(b)(6) (determined without regard to the type of activity financed). To incorporate the rules in § 1.752-2(d)(1), the commenter suggested that the final regulations broadly refer to § 1.752-2 when describing situations that give rise to EROL instead of listing specific applicable paragraphs in § 1.752-2.

The final regulations correct the oversight in the proposed regulations by listing in one section of the regulations all the situations under § 1.752-2 in which a person directly bears the EROL, including by taking into account the de minimis exceptions in § 1.752-2(d). A person directly bears the EROL if that person, and not a related person, meets the requirements of the listed situations.

Under existing § 1.752-4(b)(1), a person is related to a partner if the person and the partner bear a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b) or section 707(b)(1) of the Code, except that “80 percent or more” is substituted for “more than 50 percent” in each of those sections, a person's family is determined by excluding siblings, and section 267(e)(1) and (f)(1)(A) are disregarded. In determining whether a partner and a person bear a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b) or section 707(b)(1), the constructive stock ownership rules in section 267(c) apply. See sections 267(c) and 707(b)(3). The proposed regulations would disregard the constructive stock ownership rules under section 267(c)(1) in determining whether to treat stock of a corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a partnership as owned proportionately by or for its partners if the corporation is a lender under § 1.752-2(c) or has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of its partnership owner. The preamble to the proposed regulations explained that a partner's EROL that is limited to the partner's equity investment in the partnership should be treated differently than the risk of loss beyond that investment.

Commenters agreed with the rationale underlying the proposed regulations and suggested that the final regulations disregard two other constructive ownership situations in determining relatedness under § 1.752-4(b)(1). First, commenters suggested that the final regulations also disregard section 267(c)(1) in determining whether to treat a UTP's direct or indirect interest in an LTP as owned proportionately by or for the UTP's partners if the LTP is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of the UTP. Commenters expressed the view that in this situation, like the one described in the proposed regulations, a partner should not be treated as bearing the EROL for a partnership liability merely as a result of the UTP's investment in an LTP that has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of the UTP.

Second, commenters suggested that the final regulations disregard section 1563(e)(2) of the Code in determining relatedness under § 1.752-4(b)(1). For purposes of § 1.752-4(b)(1), a person is related to a partner if the two parties bear a relationship to each other as described in section 267(b)(3). Under section 267(b)(3), a corporate partner and another corporation that are members of the same controlled group (as defined in section 267(f)) are treated as related for purposes of § 1.752-4(b)(1). Section 267(f) gives “controlled group” the same meaning as in section 1563(a). Under section 1563(a), a controlled group of corporations includes a parent-subsidiary controlled group and a brother-sister controlled group. Section 1563(e) provides attribution rules that apply in determining whether a corporation is a member of a parent-subsidiary controlled group or of a brother-sister controlled group. Specific to partnerships, section 1563(e)(2) provides that stock owned, directly or indirectly, by or for a partnership is considered as owned by any partner having an interest of 5 percent or more in either the capital or profits of the partnership in proportion to the partner's interest in capital or profits, whichever is greater. Therefore, in applying the attribution rules under section 1563(e)(2), a corporate partner in a partnership could be treated as a member of a parent-subsidiary controlled group or of a brother-sister controlled group, and thus, related to a corporation in that group that is owned by the partnership. If the corporate subsidiary of the partnership has a payment obligation with respect to a liability of the partnership, the corporate partner is treated as bearing the EROL for that liability. Commenters recommended not treating the corporate partner as bearing the EROL merely as a result of applying the attribution rules under section 1563(e)(2) because the partner's risk is limited to the investment in the partnership.

The final regulations adopt these suggestions. Thus, in determining relatedness under § 1.752-4(b)(1), the final regulations disregard: (1) section 267(c)(1) in determining whether a UTP's interest in an LTP is owned proportionately by or for the UTP's partners when an LTP directly bears the EROL for a liability of the UTP and (2) section 1563(e)(2) in determining whether a corporate partner in a partnership and a corporation owned by the partnership are members of the same controlled group when the corporation directly bears the EROL for a liability of the owner partnership. In both of these situations, a partner should not be treated as bearing the EROL when the partner's risk is limited to the partner's equity investment in the partnership.

Under the proposed regulations, if a person who owns (directly or indirectly through one or more partnerships) an interest in a partnership is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability, or portion thereof, then other persons owning interests directly or indirectly (through one or more partnerships) in that partnership would not be treated as related to that person for purposes of determining the EROL borne by each of them for the partnership liability, or portion thereof (related partner exception).

One commenter recommended that the final regulations clarify the meaning of the phrase “not treated as related” as used in proposed examples illustrating the related partner exception. The phrase “not treated as related” is intended to mean that, under § 1.752-4(b)(1), the partner and the other person are not treated as bearing a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b) or section 707(b)(1) (taking into account any applicable attribution rules). Accordingly, the phrase “not treated as related” should be broadly interpreted. For instance, in § 1.752-4(b)(5)(iii) of the final regulations, A wholly owns corporations X and Y. X and Y are members of Partnership, an entity treated as a partnership for Federal tax purposes. The partnership agreement provides that X and Y share equally in all items of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit of Partnership. X owns 79 percent of Z, a corporation, and Y owns 21 percent of Z. Each of X and Z guarantees the entire amount of a liability of Partnership. Under this example, X and Y are not treated as related for purposes of determining the EROL borne by each of them for the partnership's liability, and, because neither X nor Y owns an 80 percent or more interest in Z, X and Y are not treated as related to Z under § 1.752-4(b)(1). In other words, X and Y are not related to Z within the meaning of § 1.752-4(b)(1), which takes into account any applicable attribution rules.

Another commenter suggested that the related partner exception should apply only to turn off relatedness so that the direct EROL borne by one partner is not attributed to another partner. This commenter recommended that the rule should not turn off the relationship between a partner that directly bears the EROL for a partnership liability and another partner for purposes of determining whether those partners are related to a non-partner that also bears EROL for the partnership's liability. If the related partner exception did not apply in this situation, both partners would be treated as bearing the EROL for the partnership liability and share the liability under the proportionality rule.

The proposed regulations would implement the result in IPO II v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 295 (2004), which applied the related partner exception to turn off the relationship between the partners and allocated the entirety of a partnership's liability to the partner that directly bore the EROL for the partnership's liability despite a non-partner related person also bearing the EROL. Therefore, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

The proposed regulations provide that if a person is a lender or has a payment obligation with respect to a partnership liability and is related to more than one partner, then those partners that are related to that person (related partners) share the liability equally. One commenter suggested that the multiple partner rule may be unnecessary and recommended that the final regulations only include the proportionality rule in proposed § 1.752-2(a) to address how to allocate EROL when there is overlapping EROL, including because multiple partners are related to a person with a payment obligation. The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. The multiple partner rule is necessary because, without this rule, the partners might share EROL incorrectly. For example, corporations X, Y, and Z are partners in an entity treated as a partnership for Federal tax purposes. The partnership agreement provides that the partners share equally in all items of income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit of XYZ partnership. A, an individual, wholly owns X and Y. Z is an unrelated third party. Partnership borrows $1,000 from a bank and A and Z both guarantee the entire amount of the liability. Without the multiple partner rule, each of X and Y has $1,000 of EROL from A's $1,000 guarantee and Z has $1,000 of EROL from its guarantee. Each would be allocated one-third of the liability under the proportionality rule. In contrast, by applying the multiple partner rule, each of X and Y has $500 of EROL. When the proportionality rule is applied, X and Y are each allocated one-fourth of the liability and Z is allocated one-half of the liability. This is the correct result because there is one guarantee from A's related group and one guarantee by Z.

The commenter also recommended that if the final regulations retain the multiple partner rule, the final regulations allow the related partners to agree among themselves how to allocate the liability, provided that the allocation is consistently applied. The commenter explained that allowing related partners to choose among themselves who receives the allocation could prevent related partners from recognizing an uneconomic gain. To address the commenter's underlying concern, the final regulations under § 1.752-4(b)(3) treat related partners as bearing the EROL for a partnership liability in proportion to each related partner's interest in partnership profits.

The proposed regulations had different rules regarding allocations of partnership liabilities for related and unrelated parties. In particular, the proportionality rule in proposed § 1.752-2(a) addressed when partners have overlapping EROL, the related partner exception in proposed § 1.752-4(b)(2) described when partners with direct EROL are not treated as related to other partners, and the multiple partner rule in proposed § 1.752-4(b)(3) provided how EROL is shared when multiple partners are related to a person that is a lender or has a payment obligation. One commenter expressed confusion regarding how these rules interact and suggested that the final regulations include an ordering rule.

The final regulations adopt this suggestion. An ordering rule is warranted to clarify how the proportionality rule interacts with the multiple partner rule and how the multiple partner rule interacts with the related partner exception. Therefore, under § 1.752-4(e), the first step is to determine whether any partner (direct or indirect) directly bears the EROL for the partnership liability and apply the related partner exception in § 1.752-4(b)(2). After applying the related partner exception (if applicable), the next step is to determine the amount of EROL each partner is considered to bear under § 1.752-4(b)(3) when multiple partners are related to a person that directly bears the EROL for a partnership liability. The final step is to apply the proportionality rule in § 1.752-2(a)(2) to determine the amount of EROL that each partner is considered to bear when the amount of EROL that multiple partners bear exceed the amount of the partnership liability. The final regulations include an example to illustrate the ordering rule in § 1.752-4(e).

The preamble to the proposed regulations requested comments concerning the proper treatment of liabilities when a UTP bears the EROL for an LTP's liability and distributes, in a liquidating distribution, its interest in the LTP to one of its partners, but the transferee partner does not bear the EROL. As a result of this transaction, the LTP's recourse liability became a nonrecourse liability for purposes of section 752. The preamble requested comments specifically on the timing of the liability reallocation relative to the transaction that caused the liability to change from recourse to nonrecourse.

The Treasury Department and the IRS received thoughtful comments regarding this issue in response to the request for comments and are continuing to consider whether additional guidance regarding the issue is warranted.

Under the proposed regulations the rules would apply to any liability incurred or assumed by a partnership on or after the date the regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register . Commenters suggested that the final regulations allow a taxpayer to apply the final regulations to all liabilities incurred or assumed by a partnership (even liabilities incurred or assumed before the date of publication of these regulations), with respect to all returns, including amended returns, filed after the date these regulations are published. The final regulations adopt this suggestion, but clarify that a partnership must apply these rules consistently to all of its partnership liabilities and may not pick and choose which rules apply to them. Allowing taxpayers to apply these regulations before the publication date will provide greater certainty for partnerships and their partners and allow uniform rules to apply to all partnership liabilities. As a result, these final regulations allow a partnership to apply the rules to all liabilities with respect to returns filed on or after December 2, 2024, provided the partnership consistently applies all the rules in these final regulations to those liabilities.

A commenter also suggested that the final regulations permit partnership liabilities that are modified or refinanced and payment obligations that are modified to continue to be subject to the provisions of the regulations in effect prior to the applicability date of the final regulations, but only to the extent of the amount and duration of the pre-modification (or refinancing) liability or payment obligation. The commenter identified § 1.707-5(c) as a model for a special refinancing rule. The commenter noted that without such a rule, the applicability date in the proposed regulations might discourage partnerships from refinancing debts or subject partners to unexpected adverse results.

The final regulations adopt this suggestion. Accordingly, the final regulations do not apply to refinanced debts to the extent of the amount and duration of the pre-modification liability. Instead, the rules in the regulations as in effect prior to December 2, 2024, continue to apply to those liabilities. For example, assume a partnership borrowed $1,000 on January 28, 2024, from Bank, and X, a person related to Partners A and B, guaranteed the entire amount of that liability. Further assume that this liability was refinanced after December 2, 2024 so that the liability is now $2,000 and X continues to guarantee the entire amount of the liability. The rules in effect prior to December 2, 2024 would continue to apply to the $1,000 of pre-modification liability and X's guarantee of the $1,000 when determining which partner bears the EROL. The rules in effect after December 2, 2024 would apply to the remaining $1,000.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA) generally requires that a Federal agency obtain the approval of the Office of Management and Budget before collecting information from the public, whether such collection of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit. These regulations do not impose a collection of information and, therefore, the PRA does not apply.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the rules affect small entities, data is not readily available about the number of taxpayers affected. Section 752 affects the allocation of partnership liabilities among partners in a partnership. The economic impact of these regulations is not likely to be significant, because the regulations will make it easier for taxpayers to comply with section 752. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), the Secretary hereby certifies that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations that preceded these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) for comment on its impact on small business. The Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the SBA did not provide any comments on the proposed regulations.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits and take certain other actions before issuing a final rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures in any one year by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial, direct compliance costs on State and local governments, and is not required by statute, or preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. These final regulations do not have federalism implications and do not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, Review of Treasury Regulations under Executive Order 12866 (June 9, 2023), tax regulatory actions issued by the IRS are not subject to the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Guidance cited in this preamble is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at https://www.irs.gov.

The principal author of these regulations is Caroline E. Hay, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

The additions read as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving Utah's regional haze plan for the second implementation period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas. 1 The rule requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). As discussed in further detail in our proposed rule, this document, and the accompanying Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that Utah submitted a regional haze SIP that does not meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze second implementation period.

Additionally, the EPA is disapproving a portion of Utah's January 9, 2020, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that addresses interstate transport of visibility impairing pollutants. Utah submitted this SIP submission to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We are disapproving the portion of the infrastructure SIP submission addressing interstate transport of visibility impairing pollutants for not meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (“Prong 4”). The State's submissions, the proposed rule, and the RTC document can be found in the docket for this action.

Our notice of proposed rulemaking was published on August 19, 2024. 89 FR 67208. Our public comment period closed on September 18, 2024. During the public notice and comment period, we received more than 5,600 comments on our proposal. The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. Our RTC document, which is also included in the docket, provides full, detailed responses to all significant comments received and further explains the basis for our final action.

On August 2, 2022, Utah submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second implementation period, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program established by CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

On August 19, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove certain provisions of Utah's regional haze SIP submission. 2 Specifically, we proposed to disapprove the portions of Utah's regional haze SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation. We also proposed to approve the portions of Utah's regional haze SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may partially approve portions of a submittal if those elements meet all applicable requirements and may disapprove the remainder so long as the elements are fully separable.

Our August 19, 2024, proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Utah's regional haze SIP submittals and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in full here, although we briefly summarize the reasons for our partial disapproval of Utah's regional haze SIP submission in the paragraphs that follow.

In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade (anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period is a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting that national goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state's long-term strategy must address regional haze in each Class I area within the state's borders and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions originating from within the state. It “must include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).” 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is “reasonable progress” is based on consideration of the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1)—the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources  3 —in an evaluation of potential control measures for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a “four-factor” analysis. In developing its long-term strategy, the state must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).

As detailed in section 3.A. of the RTC document, the CAA authorizes the EPA to substantively review states' SIP submissions for compliance with the statute and EPA's regulations to ensure progress towards the national visibility goal for Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA with exercising “federal oversight” over SIP submissions and “review[ing] all SIPs to ensure that the plans comply with the statute.” Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). The “EPA is left with more than the ministerial task of routinely approving SIP submissions.” North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Agency's “review of a SIP extends not only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions” and is “based on `reasoned analysis.' ” Id. at 761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep't of Envt. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78 F.4th 1171, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that “the Act provides for substantive and careful EPA review” of SIP submissions and that “the EPA does not have to accept unreasonable analyses”). For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this document, and in the RTC document, the EPA concludes that Utah's regional haze SIP submission does not meet all of the requirements of the CAA and RHR.

As detailed at length in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, we conclude that Utah's long-term strategy does not meet the requirements of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) on three independent grounds. Our first basis for disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy is the State's unreasonable rejection of NO X emission reduction measures at the Hunter and Huntington power plants. Based on its evaluation of the four statutory factors, Utah concluded that installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or other physical NO X pollution controls is not necessary to achieve reasonable progress toward Congress's national visibility goal. Instead, Utah established plantwide mass-based NO X emission limits, which cap the total amount of NO X the Hunter and Huntington power plants can emit during a 12-month rolling period at levels that are similar to the status quo. 4

Utah's determination that the plantwide mass-based NO X emission limits for Hunter and Huntington are all that is necessary to make reasonable progress is not grounded in a reasoned evaluation of the four statutory factors or a defensible technical analysis. Utah's assessment of the costs of compliance, one of the four statutory factors, hinged on its finding that physical controls that cost more than $5,750/ton are not cost-effective for the plants; a determination that likely reductions in the future utilization of Hunter and Huntington would reduce the cost-effectiveness of SCR; and concern about various affordability considerations associated with the installation of SCR, including an unsubstantiated conclusion that a requirement to install SCR may cause the plants to close early. As detailed in the proposed rule and in the RTC document, 5 Utah did not provide adequate support for its analysis of and conclusions regarding the costs of compliance. Therefore, we find that Utah did not justify its conclusion that the costs of compliance favored mass-based emission limits over SCR for the Hunter and Huntington power plants.

We also find that Utah's evaluation of the other three statutory factors (the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected anthropogenic source of visibility impairment) was unreasonable. Utah did not take into consideration the factual information supplied by the operator of the plants or the regulation governing how time necessary for compliance may be considered when concluding that the time necessary for compliance favored mass-based emission limits over SCR. 6 For the energy and non-air quality impacts of SCR, Utah provided no analysis or documentation to support its assertion that because Hunter and Huntington are projected to assist in a transition toward intermittent renewable energy generation ( e.g., wind and solar), a requirement to install SCR could lead to early plant closures and thereby negatively affect renewable energy deployment. In considering the plants' remaining useful lives, Utah did not adequately substantiate its concerns about early plant closures or its assessment that Hunter and Huntington would retire before the 30-year amortization period for SCR, further reducing SCR's cost-effectiveness. Utah also relied on the plants' projected retirement dates from the owner's resource plans, which frequently change and are not federally enforceable. For the reasons detailed in the proposed rule and in the RTC document, 7 we find that Utah unreasonably concluded that the remaining three statutory factors support its determination that plantwide mass-based emission limits for the Hunter and Huntington power plants, instead of SCR, are all that is necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.

Furthermore, the specific parameters of the mass-based emission limits that Utah established do not reflect reasoned analysis. In rejecting SCR, Utah relied on its unsupported conclusion that future utilization of Hunter and Huntington was likely to decrease, thereby eroding the cost-effectiveness of SCR. 8 However, Utah then set the mass-based emission limits at levels premised on increased plant utilization, without acknowledging or reconciling the conflict in its treatment of plant utilization within its SIP submission. 9 Nor did Utah adequately support its determination that mass-based emission limits that apply over the course of a 12-month rolling period, as opposed to a shorter time period such as monthly or seasonally, are sufficient to make reasonable progress. 10 For all of these reasons, and as further detailed in our proposed rule and RTC document, 11 we are disapproving Utah's long-term strategy because the State did not reasonably evaluate the NO X emission reduction measures for Hunter and Huntington that are necessary to make reasonable progress toward Congress's national visibility goal. See CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).

Our second basis for disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy is the State's unjustified decision not to evaluate whether emission reduction measures at CCI Paradox Lisbon Natural Gas Plant are necessary for reasonable progress. Utah relied on inaccurately calculated 2020 emissions data and an incorrect determination that anomalously high SO 2 emissions in 2014 and 2015 had caused the facility to exceed Utah's Q/d threshold  12 for requiring four-factor analysis. In its comments on the proposed rule, Utah conceded that it had erroneously calculated the facility's Q/d value based on incorrect 2020 emissions data and noted its intention to submit a SIP revision or SIP supplement to address this issue. Because this deficiency has not been rectified, and as further detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, 13 we are disapproving Utah's long-term strategy because the State did not consider the emission reduction measures at CCI Paradox Lisbon Natural Gas Plant that are necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, as required by CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).

Our third basis for disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy is the State's unreasonable rejection of SO 2 emission reduction measures at Sunnyside Cogeneration and its incorporation of unsupported emission limits for that facility into its SIP. As explained in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, Utah unreasonably rejected dry scrubbing (also known as dry sorbent injection), a technically feasible SO 2 control, without providing adequate technical documentation. 14 After rejecting dry scrubbing, Utah determined that the facility's existing emission limits are necessary to achieve reasonable progress and incorporated those emission limits into its SIP. 15 However, the SIP incorporates two separate emission limits for both NO X and SO 2 : one that applies during normal boiler operation and a higher limit that applies during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. Utah did not include a definition of the term “normal boiler operations” and did not provide any documentation of the frequency of normal boiler operations versus SSM events. Utah also did not explain how often the facility operates at the higher SSM emission limits and did not provide adequate technical documentation addressing how those higher limits relate to the State's obligation to make reasonable progress. In sum, due to Utah's unreasonable rejection of SO 2 emission reduction measures and its inclusion of unsupported emission limits for Sunnyside Cogeneration into its SIP, we cannot conclude that the State's long-term strategy includes all the measures necessary to make reasonable progress.

Our proposed rule identified a fourth basis for disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy: Utah's improper inclusion of automatic exemptions for SSM events in the emission restrictions for Intermountain power plant. 16 After careful consideration of comments, we are not relying on this issue as a basis for our disapproval of Utah's long-term strategy in our final rule. Section 5.F.i. of the RTC document sets forth our rationale and contains our full responses to the comments we received regarding the SSM provisions for Intermountain power plant.

Finally, in addition to disapproving the State's long-term strategy, we are disapproving Utah's reasonable progress goals under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) and its consultation with FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i). As detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, 17 compliance with these requirements is dependent on compliance with the long-term strategy provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).

On January 9, 2020, Utah submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to address the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). Subsequently, on August 19, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of Utah's January 9, 2020, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that addressed interference with visibility protection (“Prong 4”). 18 Our public comment period closed on September 18, 2024.

Our August 19, 2024, proposed rule provided background on the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, a summary of the portion of Utah's infrastructure SIP submittal being acted on and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated here. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule  19 and in section 12 of the accompanying RTC document, the EPA concludes that the Prong 4 portion of Utah's January 9, 2020, infrastructure SIP submission does not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document, and in this document, we are partially approving and partially disapproving Utah's regional haze SIP submission. 20

We are disapproving the following components of Utah's regional haze SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A:

• Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));

• Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)); and

• FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).

We are approving the following components of Utah's regional haze SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A:

• Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR 51.308(f)(1));

• Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR 51.308(f)(4));

• Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g)); and

• Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)).

Additionally, as a consequence of our partial disapproval of Utah's regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period, the EPA is disapproving the Prong 4 portion of Utah's January 9, 2020, infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of R307-110-28, excluding long-term strategy, reasonable progress goals, and FLM consultation. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this material generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, this material has been approved by the EPA for inclusion in Utah's SIP, has been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, is fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 21

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 partially approves and partially disapproves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment.

Utah evaluated EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal even though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation. A summary of Utah's EJ considerations is contained in section VIII. of the proposed rule. The EPA also performed an EJ analysis, as described in the proposed rule. Both Utah's and the EPA's analyses were done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA on bases independent of Utah's evaluation of EJ. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 31, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving Wyoming's regional haze plan for the second implementation period. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas. 1 The rule requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). As discussed in further detail in our proposed rule, this document, and the accompanying Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that Wyoming submitted a regional haze SIP that does not meet all of the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period. The State's submission, the proposed rule, and the RTC document can be found in the docket for this action.

On August 10, 2022, Wyoming submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second implementation period, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program established by CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

On August 1, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove certain provisions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission. 2 Specifically, we proposed to disapprove the portions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation. We also proposed to approve the portions of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may partially approve portions of a submittal if those elements meet all applicable requirements and may disapprove the remainder so long as the elements are fully separable.

Our August 1, 2024 proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Wyoming's regional haze SIP submittals and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in full here, although we briefly summarize the reasons for our partial disapproval of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission in the paragraphs that follow.

Our public comment period closed on September 3, 2024. During the public notice and comment period, we received more than 6,000 comments on our proposal. The full text of the comments received are included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. Our RTC document, which is also included in the docket, provides full, detailed responses to all significant comments received and further explains the basis for our final action.

In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade (anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period is a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting that national goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state's long-term strategy must address regional haze in each Class I area within the state's borders and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions originating from within the state. It “must include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).” 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is “reasonable progress” is based on consideration of the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1)—the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources  3 —in an evaluation of potential control measures for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a “four-factor” analysis. In developing its long-term strategy, the state must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). Wyoming did not include any emission control measures, new or existing, in its long-term strategy for the regional haze second implementation period.

As explained in section 3.A. of the RTC document, the CAA authorizes the EPA to substantively review states' SIP submissions for compliance with the statute and RHR to ensure progress towards the national visibility goal for Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA with exercising “federal oversight” over SIP submissions and “review[ing] all SIPs to ensure that the plans comply with the statute.” Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013). The “EPA is left with more than the ministerial task of routinely approving SIP submissions.” North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Agency's “review of a SIP extends not only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions” and is “based on `reasoned analysis.' ” Id. at 761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep't of Envt. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78 F.4th 1171, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that “the Act provides for substantive and careful EPA review” of SIP submissions and that “the EPA does not have to accept unreasonable analyses”). For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this document, and in the RTC document, the EPA determines that Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission does not meet all of the requirements of the CAA and RHR.

As detailed at length in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, we conclude that Wyoming's long-term strategy does not meet the requirements of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) on four independent grounds. First, Wyoming failed to consider the four statutory factors for the sources and associated units and pollutants listed in table 1, despite determining that these sources may contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas. In some instances, Wyoming provided no justification for the lack of four-factor analysis. In others, Wyoming improperly relied on planned but unenforceable source retirements or on the presence of existing emission control measures at a source, without providing adequate technical documentation of the effectiveness of those existing controls or a sufficient indication that additional controls would not be cost-effective or reasonable. For the reasons detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, 4 the State's reasoning does not justify its decision not to conduct four-factor analyses for these sources, as required under CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Therefore, we cannot conclude that Wyoming's long-term strategy includes all the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress.

Although we stated in our proposed rule that Wyoming failed to justify the lack of a four-factor analysis of NO X and PM emission control measures for Lost Cabin Gas Plant, we are not carrying that finding forward into our final rule. Based on our consideration of a comment we received and on our further review of Wyoming's 2022 SIP submission, we conclude that because the State's Q/d analysis  5 shows that the possible impact of the facility's NO X and PM emissions on visibility at Class I areas is very small, Wyoming reasonably elected to conduct a four-factor analysis only for SO 2 control measures for this facility, and not for NO X and PM control measures. Therefore, the lack of a four-factor analysis of NO X and PM emissions controls for Lost Cabin Gas Plant is not a reason for our disapproval of the State's long-term strategy. 6

Second, Wyoming relied on unsupported rationales and failed to document the technical basis (including cost, engineering, and emissions information)  7 of its decision not to include any emission control measures in its long-term strategy for the sources listed in table 2. In evaluating the cost of potential control measures for some of these sources, Wyoming used unsubstantiated cost inputs, relied on unjustifiably low estimates of control technology efficiencies, and miscalculated the level of achievable emission reductions. These methodological errors undercut the technical support for Wyoming's cost analyses and the State's resulting determinations that control measures for these sources would not be cost-effective. In other instances, the State provided no reasoning, technical data, or cost information to support its conclusions. For the reasons detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, 8 these methodological errors and unsupported technical bases, considered collectively, prevent the EPA from determining that the State's long-term strategy is adequate to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal.

Third, Wyoming unreasonably rejected emission control measures for Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility (listed in table 3). Wyoming made no determination that these control measures were not cost-effective (based on the cost per ton of emissions reduced);  9 nor did it explain why these measures were otherwise unwarranted under the four statutory factors. 10 The cost-effectiveness values of these control measures are below the level that the EPA and the states generally found to be reasonable in the first implementation period, even without adjusting for inflation. Instead of justifying its rejection of these control measures based on the four statutory factors, Wyoming cited declining emission trends, its belief that these sources will not increase their emissions during the second implementation period, and the presence of existing control technologies at the facilities (which the State notably did not determine to be effective for purposes of making reasonable progress). 11 As we explained in the context of the 2017 Regional Haze Rule revisions, “a state that elects to consider an additional factor . . . must consider it in a reasonable way that does not undermine or nullify the role of the four statutory factors in determining what controls are necessary to make reasonable progress.”  12 Wyoming improperly relied on these other considerations to reject controls that its four-factor analyses showed to be cost-effective and otherwise reasonable.

Within its 2022 SIP submission, Wyoming conceded that based on the four-factor analyses it conducted for Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility, these sources may warrant further analysis of the measures necessary to make reasonable progress. 13 Wyoming stated it would submit more detailed analyses in the context of its regional haze second implementation progress report due in 2025. However, nothing in the CAA or RHR allows states to avoid their obligation to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress through consideration of the four statutory factors by delaying decision-making to a future date. 14 For these reasons, and as further detailed in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, 15 we find that Wyoming's long-term strategy does not include the measures necessary to make reasonable progress because Wyoming unreasonably rejected control measures for Elk Basin Gas Plant and Cheyenne Fertilizer Facility.

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving North Dakota's regional haze plan for the second planning period. 1 As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for State and Federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas, known as mandatory Class I Federal areas. 2 The rule requires the States, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). As discussed in further detail in our proposed rule, in this document, and in the accompanying Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that North Dakota submitted a regional haze SIP that does not meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements for the regional haze second planning period. The State's submission, the proposed rule, and the RTC document can be found in the docket for this action.

On August 11, 2022, North Dakota submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the second implementation period, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program established by CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

On July 10, 2024, the EPA proposed to disapprove certain provisions of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission. 3 Specifically, we proposed to disapprove the portions of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation. We also proposed to approve the portions of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress (URP); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. Consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA may partially approve portions of a submittal if those elements meet all applicable requirements and may disapprove the remainder so long as the elements are fully separable. Our public comment period closed on August 9, 2024. Our July 10, 2024, proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of North Dakota's regional haze SIP submittals and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated in full here, although we briefly summarize the reasons for our partial disapproval of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission in the paragraphs that follow.

In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade (anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period is a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward meeting that national goal. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state's long-term strategy must address regional haze in each Class I area within the state's borders and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions originating from within the state. It “must include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).” 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is “reasonable progress” is based on applying the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1)—the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources  4 —in an evaluation of potential control measures for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a “four-factor” analysis. In developing its long-term strategy, the state must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which it is relying to determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).

As detailed in section 3.A. of the RTC document, the CAA authorizes the EPA to substantively review states' SIP submissions for compliance with the statute and EPA's regulations to ensure progress towards the national visibility goal for Class I areas. Congress charged the EPA with exercising “federal oversight” over SIP submissions and “review[ing] all SIPs to ensure that the plans comply with the statute.” Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1204 (10th Cir. 2013); see also id. at 1207-08 (citing CAA Sections 110( l ), 110(a)(2)(J), and 169A(b)(2)). The “EPA is left with more than the ministerial task of routinely approving SIP submissions.” North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Agency's “review of a SIP extends not only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions” and is “based on `reasoned analysis.' ” Id. at 761, 766 (citing Alaska Dep't of Envt. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)); see also Wyoming v. EPA, 78 F.4th 1171, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting that “the Act provides for substantive and careful EPA review” of SIP submissions and that “the EPA does not have to accept unreasonable analyses”). For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this document, and in the RTC document, the EPA concludes that North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission does not meet all the requirements of the CAA and RHR.

As detailed at length in our proposed rule and in the RTC document, we conclude that North Dakota's long-term strategy does not meet the requirements of CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) on two independent grounds. First, North Dakota relied on the URP status of in-state Class I areas and a visibility improvement threshold that is inconsistent with the purpose of the CAA's visibility program to unreasonably reject feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls it evaluated under the four statutory factors at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley. Second, North Dakota failed to consider the four statutory factors for NO X at Coal Creek and unreasonably rejected feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls it evaluated under the four statutory factors at Coal Creek and Leland Olds. Likewise, North Dakota did not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) because the deficiencies in its long-term strategy prevented the State from developing adequate reasonable progress goals (RPGs). Additionally, we are disapproving North Dakota's FLM consultation under 40 CFR 51.308(i) because compliance with that requirement is dependent on fulfilling the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) (long-term strategy).

During the public notice and comment period, we received 31 comments on our proposal. The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. Our RTC document, which is also included in the docket associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments received. 5 Our RTC document is organized by topic. Therefore, if additional information is desired concerning how we addressed a particular comment, the reader should refer to the appropriate section in the RTC document.

We received several comments on our proposed disapproval of North Dakota's long-term strategy on the basis that North Dakota unreasonably considered visibility benefits to reject technically feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls based on an unreasonable interpretation of CAA 169A to select its visibility improvement threshold that essentially nullified the CAA 169A(g)(1) statutory factors. Below, we provide a summary and response to this issue including North Dakota's interpretation that a change of RPG of 1.0 deciview (dv) visibility improvement (a change in visibility impairment visible to the naked eye) is needed to necessitate additional controls to make “reasonable progress.” This is inconsistent with the plain language and Congress' explicitly stated national purpose of the CAA's visibility provisions.

In North Dakota's SIP, North Dakota determined that because its visibility improvement analysis showed no “significant” change in visibility after installation of potential controls, it would not be reasonable to require any additional controls to make reasonable progress for Coyote Station and Antelope Valley. We proposed disapproval due to North Dakota's reliance on visibility considerations to reject cost-effect controls at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley. Commenters concluded that this meant the EPA was either prohibiting the State from considering visibility in the four-factor analysis or that we ignored North Dakota's visibility analysis. This is incorrect. The CAA's cooperative federalism framework imposes on EPA a substantive role in determining if a SIP is approvable. See our RTC section 3.A Cooperative Federalism and State Discretion for a detailed explanation. In particular, any approvable regional haze SIP must be consistent with Congress' explicit statutory declaration of the “national goal” for “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” Additionally, in determining reasonable progress, states must “consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.”  6

The EPA has acknowledged that a state may reasonably consider factors beyond the explicit four CAA section 169A(g)(1) factors, such as visibility, when assessing sources or source categories. In a response to comment on the 2017 RHR, EPA noted that a state that elects to consider an additional factor, such as visibility, must do so in a reasonable way that does not undermine or nullify the role of the four statutory factors. 7

As this response to comment indicates, the consideration of any non-statutory factor, including visibility, must be reasonable. See, e.g., North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 766 (“EPA's review of a SIP extends not only to whether the state considered the necessary factors in its determination, but also to whether the determination is one that is reasonably moored to the CAA's provisions.”). The reasonableness of a state's visibility consideration in the four-factor analysis turns on whether the determination is reasonably moored to the CAA visibility provisions and how the state explained and supported its determination in the record.

Here, we find that North Dakota's consideration of visibility in its four-factor analysis is unreasonable and inconsistent with the CAA and the RHR. Specifically, North Dakota rejected technically feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley based on its unreasonable visibility improvement threshold in considering visibility as part of the four-factor analysis. 8 In its SIP, North Dakota determined that no additional controls are required for Coyote Station and Antelope Valley due to “insignificant” visibility improvement when looking at the change in the RPG for a Class I area (Lostwood and Theodore Roosevelt) from the addition of potential controls. This determination was based on an interpretation that CAA section 169A requires a change in RPG of 1.0 dv improvement from the addition of controls at a single Class I area before that control is required to make “reasonable progress.” However, this interpretation is unreasonable and inconsistent with the CAA.

Congress mandated the national goal of remedying of existing and preventing future visibility impairment air pollution from anthropogenic sources. 9 In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the D.C. Circuit stated that “[t]he statutory goal enunciated in § 169A(a)(1) is quite clear: `the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility.' . . . [Therefore, agency] regulations that aim to remedy any existing impairment of visibility and prevent any future impairment—as the statute commands—will of necessity aim to achieve a state of natural visibility. There is no material inconsistency between the statutory and regulatory goals, for the latter merely elucidates the former.” Id. at 10. Therefore, as outlined throughout our proposal and this final document, the EPA is within its authority to disapprove North Dakota's long-term strategy for not including the necessary measures. Specifically, North Dakota's consideration of visibility requiring a change in RPG of 1.0 dv improvement at a single Class I area to necessitate the imposition of additional controls under reasonable progress effectively undermines and nullifies the Congressionally mandated national goal and the reasonable progress four-factor analysis requirements enumerated in CAA sections 169A(a)(1) and (g)(1). There are 56,025 anthropogenic industrial sources (electric generating units (EGU), oil and gas, and other industrial point (non-EGU) sources) in the United States that contribute to Lostwood, which is the closest Class I area to the sources evaluated by North Dakota. 10 North Dakota rejected feasible and reasonably inexpensive ($400/ton-$1,800/ton) controls at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley under two control scenarios due to asserted non-visible and therefore ostensibly “insignificant” visibility improvement (less than 1.0 dv change in RPG visibility improvement) at a Class I area for the second planning period. However, North Dakota's analysis showed that both potential control scenarios were feasible and reasonably inexpensive and resulted in either a 10% or 25% greater visibility improvement than existing on-the-books controls for this planning period at Lostwood.

In particular, North Dakota's visibility improvement analysis projected visibility improvement from existing controls in North Dakota to be 0.4 dv at Lostwood for this 10-year planning period. North Dakota considered two modeling runs to assess visibility impact of controls: Potential Additional Control Scenario 1 (“PAC1:” Replacement of the SO 2 absorber at $1,800/ton and installation of SNCR for NO X at $1,700/ton at Coyote Station as well as increasing the stoichiometric ratio on existing FGD for SO 2 emission reductions at $700/ton at Antelope Valley) and Potential Additional Control Scenario 2 (“PAC2:” FGD modification for SO 2 emission reductions ($400/ton) at Coyote Station). Based on North Dakota's analysis, PAC1 showed an additional 0.1 dv visibility improvement at Lostwood, with control costs ranging from $700/ton-$1,700/ton, resulting in a projected 25% visibility improvement at Lostwood for this planning period. Under PAC2, North Dakota's SIP showed an additional 0.04 dv projected visibility improvement at $400/ton, which would result in a projected 10% visibility improvement at Lostwood for this planning period. North Dakota rejected both control scenarios due to their lack of “significant” visibility improvement or change in RPG.

In response to comments on our 2017 RHR, we reemphasized that achieving reasonable progress will depend upon obtaining aggregate reductions from possibly thousands of sources, and thus, rejecting a control measure because its effect on the RPG is subjectively assessed as “not meaningful” when that control is identified as feasible and relatively inexpensive under the four statutory factors would be inappropriate. We stated:

The commenter's second suggestion, that states should be able to reject “costly” control measures if the RPG for the most impaired days is not “meaningfully” different than current visibility conditions, is counterintuitive and at odds with the purpose of the visibility program. In this situation, the state should take a second look to see whether more effective controls or additional measures are available and reasonable. Whether the state takes this second look or not, it may not abandon the controls it has already determined are reasonable based on the four factors. Regional haze is visibility impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area. At any given Class I area, hundreds or even thousands of individual sources may contribute to regional haze. Thus, it would not be appropriate for a state to reject a control measure (or measures) because its effect on the RPG is subjectively assessed as not “meaningful.” Also, for Class I areas where visibility conditions are considerably worse than natural conditions because of continuing anthropogenic impairment from numerous sources, the logarithmic nature of the deciview index makes the effect of a control measure on the value of the RPG less than its effect would be if visibility conditions at the Class I area were better. Thus, if a state could reject a control measure based on its individual effect on the RPG, the state would be more likely to reject those measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress at the dirtiest Class I areas, which would thwart Congress' national goal (82 FR 3078, 3093; Jan. 10, 2017).

North Dakota's approach in considering visibility under the four-factor analysis effectively undermines and nullifies Congressional intent, since there is no scenario for this or subsequent planning periods under which controls to improve visibility would ever be required under the CAA visibility program, no matter how low the cost since no one source impairs visibility at a single Class I area ( e.g. Lostwood and Theodore Roosevelt National Park) above 1.0 dv. This conflicts with the CAA's stated national visibility goal of elimination of impairment from manmade sources and thus, North Dakota's consideration of visibility is improper. Specifically, North Dakota's determination to reject feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley was improper. North Dakota's own analysis shows significant visibility improvement from additional controls at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley compared against the visibility improvement from all sources that contribute to visibility impairment at Lostwood and/or Theodore Roosevelt National Park during this planning period.

To explore this point further, the EPA included in the docket to this action a Technical Appendix, which examines, using Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) data, the total anthropogenic nitrate and sulfate visibility-impairment impacts on North Dakota Class I areas from the EGU sector in North Dakota. As shown in the Technical Appendix, North Dakota's EGU sources contribute ~22% (a significant portion) of the total anthropogenic impairment (nitrate and sulfate combined) on most-impaired days from all sources in the United States at Lostwood Wilderness Area. When compared to natural conditions, this translates to 0.92 dv. 11 North Dakota's EGU sources contribute ~14% (a significant portion) of the total anthropogenic impairment (nitrate and sulfate combined) from all sources in the United States at Theodore Roosevelt National Park. When compared to natural conditions, this translates to 0.26 dv. 12 These numbers demonstrate the unreasonableness of North Dakota's position that controls must produce a perceptible impact to a Class I area RPG, or larger than 1.0 dv, to be necessary for reasonable progress. The EPA acknowledges the significant impact of the North Dakota EGU sector on visibility impairment at Lostwood Wilderness Area  13 and Theodore Roosevelt National Park, 14 despite these impacts amounting to less than a 1.0 dv impact on the RPG at each Class I area. Thus, North Dakota's threshold for determining whether visibility improvement on a Class I area RPG necessitates new controls plainly serves to nullify the result of a four-factor analysis, especially given the low cost of controls rejected at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station.

Furthermore, as we have noted previously, regional haze is caused by hundreds or thousands of individual sources and very few remaining sources (or even none of them) will individually have impacts as large as a threshold that might be considered a “perceptible” or “meaningful” impact. However, these sources still contribute to visibility impairment and have a meaningful impact in the aggregate. 15 Under the CAA and the RHR, each state that impacts a Class I area must consider the four statutory factors to determine whether additional measures are necessary for reasonable progress. Based on the WRAP data evaluated in the proposed rule, in the Technical Appendix, and in the RTC document, North Dakota has significant impacts on both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas, 16 which is one of the bases to consider additional measures. In its analysis of additional measures, North Dakota showed that, compared to natural conditions, the controls rejected at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station would result in a 0.29 dv reduction at Lostwood Wilderness Area, 17 the highest-impacted Class I area from ND sources. Comparing this to the total impairment resulting from North Dakota EGUs at Lostwood Wilderness Area, the controls North Dakota rejected at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station would result in a ~32% reduction in visibility impairment from North Dakota's EGU sector. 18 Given that North Dakota is by far the largest contributor to impairment at Lostwood Wilderness Area, 19 the EPA finds the reduction in visibility impairment associated with these controls to be significant. In its analysis of additional measures, North Dakota also showed that, compared to natural conditions, the feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls rejected at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station would result in a 0.17 dv reduction in impairment at Theodore Roosevelt National Park. 20 Comparing this to the total impairment resulting from North Dakota EGUs at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the controls North Dakota rejected at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station would result in a ~65% reduction in visibility impairment from North Dakota's EGU sector. 21 Given that North Dakota is by far the largest contributor to impairment at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, 22 the EPA finds that the reduction in visibility impairment associated with installation of these controls would be significant.

In addition, North Dakota's consideration of visibility included various technical flaws that individually, as well as collectively, underrepresented the actual visibility improvement that might be achieved from the addition of controls at Coyote Station and Antelope Valley. As more fully explained in the RTC document, these technical flaws  23 result in an overall underestimate of the potential visibility improvement that could be achieved by the imposition of controls selected through the consideration of the four reasonable progress factors set forth in CAA section 169A(g)(1) on which North Dakota based its determination. If those errors are corrected, the imposition of controls under either scenario at Coyote Station and/or Antelope Valley would be greater than the anticipated 10-25% visibility improvement from existing controls.

As described in this preamble and in the RTC document, North Dakota's consideration of visibility, namely, its selection and application of a 1.0 dv visibility improvement threshold to reject feasible and reasonably inexpensive controls for reasonable progress at Antelope Valley and Coyote Station, undermines and nullifies the results of the four-factor analyses performed by North Dakota. This is unreasonable and inconsistent with the CAA and the RHR. Thus, EPA is required to disapprove North Dakota's long-term strategy, as well as the associated reasonable progress goals and FLM consultation.

For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, in the RTC document, and in this document, we are partially approving and partially disapproving North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission.

We are disapproving the following components of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A:

• Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));

• Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)); and

• FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).

We are approving the following components of North Dakota's 2022 SIP submission relating to CAA section 169A:

• Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR 51.308(f)(1));

• Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR 51.308(f)(4));

• Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g)); and

• Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)).

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 partially approves and partially disapproves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment.

The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis, as is described in the proposed action 89 FR 56693 (July 10, 2024) in the section titled, “Environmental Justice.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 31, 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Federal Register Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180?toc=1.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0368 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before January 31, 2025. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0368, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of September 19, 2023 (88 FR 64398, FRL-10579-08), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11755) by Spring Regulatory Sciences (6620 Cypresswood Dr., Suite 250, Spring, TX 77379) on behalf of Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC (12120 Wickchester Lane, Houston, TX 77224). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether (CAS Reg. No. 518299-31-5) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant and related adjuvant of surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest limited to 25% by weight in pesticide formulations. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Spring Regulatory Sciences on behalf of Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, the petitioner, which is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to take into account the considerations in section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D) when making a safety determination for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . ” Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA consideration when making safety determinations, including the validity, completeness, and reliability of available data, nature of toxic effects, available information concerning the cumulative effects of the pesticide chemical and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate exposure levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether, including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

The toxicological database of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether is supported by data regarding methyl laurate and alcohol ethoxylates (C 12 AE 7 , C 13 AE 3 , C 14 AE 3 , C 14 AE 7 , C 14 AE 12 , C 15 AE 3 and C 15 AE 7 ). EPA has determined that it is appropriate to bridge methyl laurate and the aforementioned alcohol ethoxylates data to assess fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether based on similarities in the functional groups/structure, composition, and physical/chemical properties.

Fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me exhibits low levels of acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a skin irritant or a skin sensitizer, but it is minimally irritating to the eyes. Reduced body weight starting at 250 mg/kg/day was observed in the combined reproduction and developmental toxicity test, 2-generation reproduction toxicity, and chronic/carcinogenicity studies. Increased offspring susceptibility was observed in the two-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. Reduced body weight in pups was observed at 250 mg/kg/day in the absence of maternal toxicity. However, the concern for offspring susceptibility is low because the established chronic reference dose (cRfD, 1.6 mg/kg/day) will be protective of offspring effects observed at 250 mg/kg/day. No effects on reproductive parameters, neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity were observed in the available studies. Concern for carcinogenicity is low, based on no evidence of tumors or cancer in chronic/carcinogenicity studies and negative results in mutagenicity studies.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.

An acute dietary endpoint was not selected because no effect attributable to a single dose was identified in the database. Co-critical chronic/carcinogenicity studies in rats were selected for the chronic dietary exposure scenario as well as short- and intermediate-term incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposure scenarios. The NOAEL of 160 mg/kg/day and LOAEL of 250 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight, are selected for risk assessment. The studies are appropriate for the duration of exposure, protective of all subchronic effects, protective of the general population, and are protective of the most sensitive lifestage (children). The standard inter- and intra-species uncertainty factors of 10x are applied (total uncertainty factor = 100x). A dermal absorption factor of 20% is applied. The default factor of 100% is applied for the inhalation absorption rate.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. There are no known non-pesticidal dietary exposures for fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether in food as follows:

In conducting the dietary exposure assessment using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM—FCIDTM, Version 4.02, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2005-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum titled “Update to D361707: Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (12/21/2021) and can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0090.

In the dietary exposure assessments, the Agency assumed that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest levels of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.

The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products are generally at least 50 percent of the product and often can be much higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient; rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active ingredient. In the case of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether, EPA made a specific adjustment to the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of the amount of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether that may be in pesticide formulations (limited to no more than 25%) present at the maximum limitation rather than at equal quantities with the active ingredient.

For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure ( e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

Fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. Therefore, screening level residential handler and post-application risk assessments have been performed for common residential exposure scenarios, using assumptions detailed in the 2012 Residential SOPs (available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide ).

3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

Based on the evaluation of available toxicity studies, there is low concern for pre- and postnatal susceptibility from exposure to fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether. The FQPA safety factor has been reduced to 1X because: (1) the toxicity database is adequate to characterize potential pre- and postnatal risk; (2) the established PoD (160 mg/kg/day) will be protective of the body weight decrease in offspring seen at 250 mg/kg/day in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats; (3) no evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the database; and (4) the assumptions for the exposure assessment are conservative and unlikely to underestimate risk.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether from food and water will utilize approximately 8.9% and 32.3% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and children 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed populations).

3. Short- and intermediate term risks. Short- and intermediate term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic exposures to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short- and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short- and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate margin of exposure (MOE) of 268 for adults. Adult residential exposure combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from aerosol spray/trigger pump with a high-end post application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. The combined short- and intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential pesticide exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 127 for children. Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). Because EPA's level of concern for fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether that may be used in pesticide formulations applied pre- and post-harvest. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for food use that exceeds 25% fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether in the final pesticide formulations to be applied pre- and post-harvest.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of fatty acids, C 16-18 and C 18 -unsatd., esters with polyethylene glycol mono-Me ether (CAS Reg. No. 518299-31-5) when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant and related adjuvant of surfactant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910, limited to a maximum concentration of 25% in a pesticide formulation.

This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, titled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, titled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, titled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, titled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, titled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

Scientific integrity plays a vital role in the mission of HHS. Ensuring integrity in science throughout the Department allows HHS to foster and produce high-quality science, communicate effectively with the public, and base critical policy decisions on trustworthy and rigorous scientific findings. HHS has adopted a Department-wide scientific integrity policy to further strengthen scientific integrity and evidence-based policymaking throughout the Department.

The Scientific Integrity Policy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Policy) was approved on September 16, 2024. The finalized Policy was announced to the HHS community and posted on the HHS scientific integrity website, at https://www.hhs.gov/programs/research/scientificintegrity/index.html, on September 30, 2024.

The document that published on Monday November 25, 2024, at 89 FR 92830 is being withdrawn. The Policy itself remains in effect and the public may continue to access the policy on the HHS website, at https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-scientific-integrity-policy.pdf.

HHS would like to clarify that the Policy does not modify, implement, or change the Rules referenced in the CFR citations section, i.e., 42 CFR part 93 and 45 CFR parts 46 and 73; and is not intended to be guidance about implementing those Rules. HHS also notes that the Policy is an internal HHS policy and only applies to HHS employees and other covered individuals as indicated in the Policy.

The effective date of the Policy remains October 16, 2024.

This document announces that OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 1.9047(d)(2) on October 30, 2024.

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).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on October 30, 2024, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 1.9047(d)(2) under OMB control number 3060-1058.

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 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: 3060-1058.

OMB Approval Date: October 30, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2027.

Title: FCC Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement or Private Commons Arrangement: WTB and PSHS Bureaus.

Form Number: FCC Form 608.

Respondents: Individual and households; Businesses or other for-profit entities; State, local, or tribal government, and Not for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 1,697 respondents; 1,697 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.05 hours-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement, one-time reporting requirement and periodic reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 2,878 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,763,375.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 608 is a multi-purpose form. It is used to provide notification or request approval for any spectrum leasing arrangement (“Lease”) entered into between an existing licensee in certain Wireless and/or Public Safety Radio Services and a spectrum lessee. This form also is required to notify or request approval for any spectrum subleasing arrangement (“Sublease”). The data collected on the form is used by the FCC to determine whether the public interest would be served by the Lease or Sublease. The form is also used to provide notification for any Private Commons Arrangement entered into between a licensee, lessee, or sublessee and a class of third-party users (as defined in section 1.9080 of the Commission's Rules).

The Commission is revising this form to collect information in order to confirm that satellite service operators and terrestrial service providers who seek to enter lease agreements in order to offer supplemental coverage from space (SCS) do so in compliance with the rules that govern SCS operations. On March 15, 2024, the Commission released the Report and Order, which adds new § 1.9047(d)(2) to the Commission's rules requiring the spectrum lessee or sublessee seeking to engage in spectrum leasing under this section to provide certain information within the Commission Form 608 when seeking a leasing agreement to provide SCS. Applicants will file Form 608 into the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) database.

The Commission anticipates that SCS will enable consumers in areas not covered by terrestrial networks to be connected using their existing devices via satellite-based communications. SCS is a crucial component of the Commission's vision for a “single network future,” in which satellite and terrestrial networks work seamlessly together to provide coverage that neither network can achieve on its own. In order to ensure that prospective SCS operators will be able to comply with the applicable rules, that the public interest will be served by granting their applications, and that harmful interference will be avoided to the greatest extent possible thereafter, the Commission seeks to collect the following information from prospective SCS spectrum lessees.

The Commission has adopted new requirements in its part 1 rules that obligate lessees to provide the following on FCC Form 608: a certification that they are entering a leasing agreement in order to provide SCS; a description of the type of permitted arrangement the parties will enter ( e.g., is there a single terrestrial licensee or multiple terrestrial licensees that together hold the required licenses); and, if there are multiple terrestrial licensees, a further description of the leasing arrangement and explanation of how those licensees together hold all of the relevant licenses in a particular geographically independent area (GIA). Entities completing FCC Form 608 for the purposes of providing SCS must also indicate that the application is for SCS by checking a box on Form 608.

This information collection is designed to allow Commission staff to carry out its statutory duties to regulate satellite communications in the public interest; namely, to ensure that prospective providers of SCS will operate in compliance with the applicable regulatory framework. This process utilizes an existing Commission form, which will remove confusion by employing the procedures that are already in place. The modifications for Form 608 covered herein will enable the Commission to more accurately track filings related to the provision of SCS, a critical component of application review given the interplay between part 1 lease filings and part 25 license applications inherent in the SCS framework. This is especially crucial where multiple entities together hold all co-channel licenses in a particular band throughout a geographically independent area (GIA) and wish to deploy a leasing agreement with a satellite operator to provide SCS. Such arrangements are only permitted in the circumstances described in § 1.9047(d)(1)(ii)(A) through (B); specifically, the Commission must be able to confirm that the multiple licensees in fact cover the entirety of the GIA in question and that, when reviewing related part 25 license applications, the entire area of the proposed service is covered by the associated leases. This collection will thereby enable the Commission to monitor and enforce the entry criteria that SCS providers must satisfy, and which are designed to minimize the possibility of harmful interference. Finally, the collection will play a critical role in the Commission's effort to review and track leasing arrangements that will result in entities providing SCS.

Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2024 allocations were published on January 2, 2024 (89 FR 34).

The final rule implementing amendment 1 to the FMP, as published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45844), provided a mechanism for transferring bluefish commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can request approval to transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.162(e). The Regional Administrator is required to consider three criteria in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations: (1) the transfers would not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; (2) the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and (3) the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional Administrator has determined these criteria have been met for the transfers approved in this notification.

Massachusetts is transferring 65,000 lb (29,484 kg) to North Carolina through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to ensure North Carolina would not exceed its 2024 state quota. The revised bluefish quotas for 2024 are: Massachusetts, 155,862 lb (70,698 kg) and North Carolina, 1,030,996 lb (467,652 kg).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority : 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.