The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

The USDA Biobased Markets Program, called the BioPreferred® Program, is established under the authority of Section 9002 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) (the 2002 Farm Bill), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 10-246) (the 2008 Farm Bill), the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) (the 2014 Farm Bill), and the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) (the 2018 Farm Bill). Section 9002 of the 2002 Farm Bill, as amended by the 2008, 2014, and 2018 Farm Bills, is referred to in this rule as section 9002 of FSRIA.

On January 24, 2024, the Agency published a proposed rule, 89 FR 4770, with request for comments for the purpose of implementing the amendments made to section 9002 of FSRIA by the 2018 Farm Bill by combining the Guidelines for Designating Biobased Products for Federal Procurement (7 CFR part 3201) and the Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products (7 CFR part 3202), the legacy rules of the BioPreferred Program, into one regulation, 7 CFR part 4270, and making amendments to streamline and improve the BioPreferred Program's rules.

The legacy rules established the two core initiatives of the BioPreferred Program. Part 3201 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations detailed the rules for the procurement of Biobased Products by Federal Agencies and their contractors, established the process for designating categories of Biobased Products for preferred Federal procurement, maintained the list of Designated Product Categories, and outlined the requirements for Biobased Products to qualify for preferred Federal procurement. Part 3202 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations established the rules for manufacturers and vendors of Biobased Products to become certified to use the USDA Certified Biobased Product Label (Label) and provided rules for maintaining certification and utilizing the Label. With this rulemaking, the Agency is merging the legacy rules into one streamlined regulation that will facilitate the objective of the BioPreferred Program, which is to encourage the increased use of Biobased Products in all market sectors. Additionally, the Agency believes these changes will benefit BioPreferred Program Stakeholders by implementing process improvements and tying the two initiatives more closely together, making it easier to qualify for both initiatives.

Sixteen respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule. The Agency reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments is provided as follows.

a. Three respondents expressed support for the inclusion of Renewable Chemicals in the definition of the term Biobased Product.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondents for their support of the change to the definition of Biobased Product.

b. One respondent recommended establishing the BioPreferred Program's definition of biobased as the uniform definition throughout the federal government.

Agency Response: The Agency agrees that it is important to have a uniform definition of biobased throughout the federal government. The requirements established by the BioPreferred Program apply to all federal agencies, and therefore, the definitions established by the BioPreferred Program apply to all federal agencies as well. The Agency will continue efforts to educate federal agencies and their contractors about Biobased Products and the requirements associated with the BioPreferred Program.

a. Three respondents expressed support for establishing a single participation process under which all products must undergo Biobased Content Testing using ASTM D6866.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondents for their support in establishing a single participation process. For reader clarification, ASTM D6866 is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International standard test methods for determining the Biobased Content of solid, liquid, and gaseous samples using radiocarbon analysis.

b. Two respondents expressed concern regarding the added requirements for all products to undergo Biobased Content Testing. The respondents noted that, through collaboration with USDA Forest Service Forest Products Lab (FPL), the Agency has established guidelines for testing wood products, under which specific types of wood and engineered wood products are exempt from testing. The respondents recommended that the Agency continue to uphold these guidelines under this final rule. The respondents asserted that changing the testing requirements for products that fall under the exemption guidelines established with FPL would add unnecessary cost to manufacturers (and therefore purchasers) and hinder the efficiency of the BioPreferred Program.

Agency Response: The Agency agrees that the guidelines for testing wood products that have been established in collaboration with FPL should be maintained. The Agency is not intending to change these guidelines with the implementation of this final rule. Products that are eligible to be exempt from testing under the guidelines established in collaboration with FPL will be exempt from testing as described by § 4270.7(d)(1) in this final rule.

c. Two respondents expressed support for maintaining the raw material sourcing innovative criterion that allows participants to demonstrate that their Biobased Product is innovative if the raw material is sourced from responsible sources according to standards such as ASTM Standard D7612—Standard Practice for Categorizing Wood and Wood-Based Products According to Their Fiber Sources.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondents for their support.

d. One respondent expressed support for the addition of the raw material sourcing innovative criterion that allows participants to demonstrate that their Biobased Product is innovative if the raw material is grown, harvested, manufactured, processed, sourced, or applied in other sustainable and ethically sourced ways as determined by the Agency.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondent for their support.

e. One respondent recommended that Biobased Products should never be grown, sold, or used as an energy source and strongly recommended against establishing any rules, requirements, or funding opportunities related to biofuels.

Agency Response: The Agency notes that biofuels, including motor vehicle fuels, heating oil, and electricity, are specifically excluded from the BioPreferred Program as mandated by section 9002 of FSRIA, and as such, this is outside the scope of the request for comment on the proposed rule.

a. One respondent would like to see increased enforcement of the requirements for federal agencies and their contractors to purchase Qualified Biobased Products. The respondent noted that the U.S. Government is the single largest purchaser of consumer goods in the world, yet this is not reflected in the reported levels of Biobased Products purchases.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates this comment and agrees that increased education and enforcement of the requirements to purchase Qualified Biobased Products is needed. The Agency is actively trying to increase awareness of these requirements through outreach efforts such as hosting trainings for federal agencies as requested, reminding federal agencies and their contractors about reporting requirements near the end of each fiscal year, and reviewing solicitations for compliance. These efforts have led to an increase of 1,000% in reporting of Biobased Product purchases in recent years. While this increase is encouraging, the Agency acknowledges that more is needed and hopes to see this trend continue with the implementation of Executive Order (E.O.) 14081, which requires federal agencies to report their Biobased Product purchasing to the Office of Management and Budget.

b. One respondent expressed concerns with section 6 of E.O. 14081, Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. The respondent asserted that E.O. 14081 has a very narrow window of improving the procurement by federal agencies for Renewable Chemicals and Biobased Products by 2024, and by the time staff are trained on the E.O., it may be rescinded by the next administration. The respondent requested that the concepts described in section 6 of E.O. 14081 be incorporated in the reauthorization of the next Farm Bill. The respondent asserted that the guidelines on procuring Biobased Products provided in section 6 of E.O. 14081 need to be codified in legislation as agencies have not been given direction in the implementation of the BioPreferred Program since its inception in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Agency Response: While the contents of E.O. 14081 and legislative changes to the Farm Bill are outside the scope of the request for comment on the proposed rule, the Agency agrees that efforts are needed to ensure federal agencies and their contractors are aware of and understand the requirements for purchasing Qualified Biobased Products.

a. Two respondents expressed support for the revised category designation process included in the proposed rule. The respondents noted that the revised process will encourage transparency and timeliness in the procurement of Biobased Products by federal agencies. One of the respondents further noted that the rapid advancement of sophisticated fermentation techniques is leading to the development of Biobased Products and Renewable Chemicals at an increasing rate and a timely response to these advancements will be necessary for the BioPreferred Program to keep pace with industry advancements. Thus, the respondent supported the changes to the category designation process.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondents for their support for the revised category designation process.

b. Two respondents recommended maintaining the category designation process established in the legacy rules. The respondents noted that the process established in the legacy rules is transparent and provides clear guardrails regarding procedural steps for designating product categories. Specifically, the respondents were concerned that without going through the regulatory process, the revised process may not allow for the collection and evaluation of Stakeholder feedback on category additions and updates. Further, the respondents were concerned that the revised process would lead to a loss of clear requirements to provide Stakeholders with adequate notice and opportunity to comment, and in turn, the requirement for the Agency to consider and respond to all comments would be lost. The respondents strongly encouraged the Agency to establish similar, robust procedures for notice, comment, and Stakeholder feedback should the Agency move forward with the revised process.

Agency Response: The Agency strongly agrees with maintaining the transparency and robustness of the category designation process, and the Agency intends to ensure that the revised designation process provides Stakeholders with opportunities to review and provide input equal to those provided by the process established by the legacy rules. Under the revised category designation process, the Agency intends to notify Stakeholders of potential updates and additions to designated product categories. While these updates will no longer be made through the formal rulemaking process, the Agency acknowledges that many Stakeholders have become accustomed to learning about designated category changes through Federal Register notices. As such, the Agency intends to notify Stakeholders of changes to designated product categories through Federal Register notices that will direct them to view and submit comments on the changes through the BioPreferred Program's website. Similarly, the Agency intends to maintain the process for considering and responding to public comments on designated product categories; this process will take place on the BioPreferred Program's website rather than as a step in the formal rulemaking process. The Agency believes that the revised process will create a balance between proposing and implementing changes in a timely manner and maintaining the transparency of the process established by the legacy rules.

a. One respondent urged the Agency to require Biobased Content Testing for products to qualify for the federal procurement preference. The respondent asserted that without required testing, there is a heightened risk for greenwashing and fraud. The respondent also recommended establishing Biobased Content audit procedures for products that are qualified to receive the federal procurement preference.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates these comments. The Agency notes that under section 9002 of FSRIA, any Biobased Product that meets the requirement of one or more designated product category is qualified to receive a federal procurement preference. This means that Biobased Products may be qualified to receive a federal procurement preference even if they do not participate in the BioPreferred Program. Qualified Biobased Products that participate in the BioPreferred Program will be required to undergo the same Biobased Content Testing and auditing procedures as certified products according to this final rule. While the Agency is unable to establish requirements for products that do not participate in the BioPreferred Program, the Agency believes it is important for federal buyers to be aware of Biobased Content requirements and ask for validation of Biobased Content claims when making purchasing decisions. To that end, the legacy rules included a stipulation that required manufacturers and vendors to provide federal agencies information to verify Biobased Content claims for Qualified Biobased Products upon request. The Agency realized this stipulation was unintentionally left out of the proposed rule language and is revising the final rule to include it.

b. One respondent strongly supported the continued use of ASTM D6866 to measure Biobased Content. The respondent also recommended specifying the use of ASTM D6866 Method B when conducting Biobased Content Testing, rather than also allowing the use of ASTM D6866 Method C as the instruments used for Method C tend to be less accurate than those used in Method B. The respondent stated that the results produced by ASTM D6866 Method B are easily understood by regulators, policy makers, corporate officers, and the public, and the overwhelming advantage of this test method is that it is an independent and standardized laboratory measurement that produces highly accurate and precise values. This means that the test results can be easily reproduced to verify the value if the results are challenged. The respondent specifically supported the use of ASTM D6866 Method B over the test method EN 16785-2 and mass balance measurements. The respondent asserted that calculation-based approaches, such as mass balance calculations, are difficult to audit and could lead to greenwashing of Biobased Content claims.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondent for their support of the continued use of ASTM D6866 to validate Biobased Content claims. The Agency agrees with the use of ASTM D6866 Method B when products undergo Biobased Content Testing for certification and notes that this is current practice. The Agency feels that specifying the use of Method B in the final rule is unnecessary but will refer to Method B in informational materials on the BioPreferred Program's website and in information sent to participants prior to testing.

c. Two respondents strongly encouraged the Agency to include an additional certification pathway that utilizes mass balance methods to verify content claims, a recommendation that was included in the Conference Report that accompanied the 2018 Farm Bill. The respondents stated that while the ASTM D6866 test method is adequate for determining the amount of traceable Biobased Content present in a finished product, it is unable to account for renewable feedstocks attributed under the mass balance approach. The respondents asserted that modernizing the BioPreferred Program to include the mass balance approach as one of the approved methods to qualify for the BioPreferred Program would advance the program's goals of furthering the bioeconomy and providing new markets for farm commodities. The respondents also stated that incorporating the mass balance method to approve products to qualify for the BioPreferred Program would substantially lower the barrier to entry for Participating Organizations and further incentivize U.S. production of mass balance Biobased Products and their related markets.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates the comments. The Agency notes that it is required to follow the specifications included within the 2018 Farm Bill itself; some of the recommendations in the accompanying Conference Report were not included in the 2018 Farm Bill, and establishing a certification pathway using mass balance approaches is one such recommendation. The Agency acknowledges that industry use of the mass balance approach can help advance the BioPreferred Program's goals of furthering the bioeconomy and providing new markets for farm commodities. However, the Agency believes that further consideration is needed before including an additional certification pathway that utilizes mass balance methods to verify content claims. The Agency also acknowledges that the mass balance process may make it easier for manufacturers to transition to more sustainable feedstocks because segregated production pathways are not needed. The Agency notes that products produced by mass balance methods are not Biobased Products as defined by this final rule. To maintain the integrity of the Label and to prevent diluting public understanding of what the Label means, it is important that the Agency maintain a consistent definition of what it means for a product to be biobased. The Agency feels that allowing alternative methods that certify claims other than Biobased Content as defined by this final rule would cause confusion about what the Label is reporting. The Agency believes that including the mass balance approach as one of the approved methods to participate in the BioPreferred Program would require establishing a separate Label and certification process with separate requirements to those established for Biobased Products, which would require significant resources. The Agency will continue to stay informed of any advancements in the use of the mass balance approach and will coordinate with program Stakeholders and the program's Technical Advisory Committee to evaluate these advancements as resources allow.

d. Two respondents recommended allowing alternative test methods in addition to the use of ASTM D6866 to validate Biobased Content claims. The respondents stated that the ASTM D6866 test method essentially discounts the relative weight of the non-carbon biobased components in products as ASTM D6866 only measures the weight of carbon content in a product. The respondents noted that certain types of products, such as wood products, contain a significant amount of molecular oxygen, and failing to account for molecular oxygen substantially underrepresents the proportion of “biobased” materials. The respondents recommended amending the final rule to allow for the use of alternative, more accurate methodologies for measuring Biobased Content as future industry consensus standards are developed and adopted.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates the comments. The Agency believes it is important to maintain a consistent definition of Biobased Content across all types of materials to maximize understanding of what the Label means. At this time, the Agency defines Biobased Content as the amount of recent, biologically derived organic carbon in the material or product expressed as a percent of weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the material or product. The Agency feels that allowing alternative test methods that measure attributes other than Biobased Content as defined by this final rule would cause confusion about what the Label is reporting.

e. One respondent recommended adding a certification attribute that quantifies the carbon intensity of a given product.

Agency Response: This is outside the scope of the request for comment on the proposed rule, which seeks to implement the amendments made to section 9002 of FSRIA by the 2018 Farm Bill.

f. Two respondents recommended allowing testing exemptions for products that have been certified to industry consensus standards that are substantively equivalent to the third-party requirements set out in the proposed rule. The respondents noted that doing so would avoid duplicative costs and compliance burdens.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates these comments. The Agency agrees that, where possible, efforts should be made to minimize burdens associated with participating in the BioPreferred Program. To that end, the Agency allows testing exemptions in specific situations where the Biobased Content of an exempt product has been demonstrated using the alternative methods specified in § 4270.7(d)(1) of this final rule. Maintaining the integrity of the BioPreferred Program and the Label is of upmost importance, and the Agency believes that accepting testing that has been done outside of the Agency's oversight could erode that integrity.

g. One respondent expressed support for allowing testing exemptions for Biobased Product Ingredients with the same formulation as other, already-approved products. The respondent noted that allowing these exemptions reduces the cost and time burdens associated with participating in the BioPreferred Program, which is important as many potential participants already have tight margins as they work to scale their operations.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondent for their support.

h. Two respondents recommended specifying that Biobased Content Testing must be done by a laboratory that is ISO/IEC 17025 accredited by an International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) recognized accreditation body.

Agency Response: For reader clarity, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental, international standard development organization composed of representatives from the national standards organizations of member countries. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is an organization that prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic, and related technologies.

The Agency agrees that ISO accreditation is important to maintain the integrity of the certification process. While the final rule does not specify that testing facilities must be ISO/IEC 17025 accredited, the Agency does require laboratories that are approved to perform testing for the BioPreferred Program to maintain ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation. The Agency believes it is not necessary to specify in the final rule that laboratories must be ISO/IEC 17025 accredited since the Agency verifies accreditation before laboratories are approved to perform testing for the BioPreferred Program.

i. One respondent recommended specifying that laboratories that are approved to perform testing for the BioPreferred Program be carbon-14 tracer-free facilities.

Agency Response: The Agency agrees that it is important for laboratories that are approved to perform testing for the BioPreferred Program be carbon-14 tracer-free facilities to minimize the potential for contamination of certification samples. Laboratories that are approved to perform testing for the BioPreferred Program sign an agreement with the Agency; the Agency believes the tracer-free stipulation would be better suited to be included in the laboratory agreement rather than in this final rule.

a. One respondent recommended reducing the time period between recertification requirements (referred to by the respondent as audits) from every 5 years to every 2 to 3 years. The respondent emphasized that these requirements must include retesting using ASTM D6866 rather than allowing a self-declaration attesting that the formulation has not been altered. The respondent asserted that, given the frequency of supply chain and formulation changes required in the Biobased Products industry, a 5-year sampling period does not guarantee that products displaying the USDA Certified Biobased Product Label will contain the Biobased Content their companies receive certification for. The respondent also recommended establishing a blind auditing procedure to randomly select products for testing in between recertification periods. The respondent stated that coupling blind audits with more frequent recertification requirements is the best way to ensure accurate, fair validation.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates these comments. The Agency notes that under the revised requirements, participants will be required to participate in an annual informational audit, during which they will self-verify that their company and product information remains up to date, as well as have their products recertified by undergoing ASTM D6866 testing every 5 years. Under the legacy rules, informational audits and retesting audits both took place every 6 years. The Agency believes that establishing an annual information audit during which participants must confirm or update their company and product information will be frequent enough to remind participants to notify the Agency of supply chain changes that may affect their product formulations. While the Agency agrees that more frequent retesting requirements, including the addition of a blind auditing procedure, would better ensure that the Biobased Content of certified products remain valid, the Agency must consider the burden associated with maintaining certification on program participants. The Agency believes that combining annual informational audits with 5-year recertification requirements balances the need to obtain updated information from participants while minimizing the burdens associated with retesting. However, the final rule does allow the Agency to request that a product be retested outside of the 5-year certification period if concerns about the validity of the product's Biobased Content are raised.

b. One respondent recommended reducing the window of time allowed to conform to the updated requirements for participants with products that are qualified but not certified or products that have been certified for more than 5 years. The respondent asserted that a 3-year window to conform to the final rule is too much time and recommended reducing this to 6 months to a year maximum and any product that does not conform within that timeframe should be removed from the BioPreferred Program.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates these comments. The Agency agrees that allowing a 3-year window to conform to the final rule is a generous amount of time. However, given the large number of products that will be required to undergo Biobased Content Testing to conform to the updated requirements, the Agency believes that a grace period of this length is needed to minimize the burden that may be placed on program resources in undertaking these activities. The Agency notes that all participants will be required to participate in annual informational audits during the grace period and may be removed from the BioPreferred Program's website if they fail to participate in such audits.

c. One respondent noted that the success for this type of certification is dependent on its universality and flexibility.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondent for their comment.

a. Five respondents expressed support for the Agency's efforts to streamline the BioPreferred Program's rules.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondents for their support.

b. One respondent expressed support for streamlining the BioPreferred Program's rules but expressed concern that this final rule does not do enough to streamline the program for participants. The respondent stated that streamlining does not improve important issues within the BioPreferred Program, such as improving the procurement initiative. To further assist in the implementation and enforcement of Biobased Product purchasing and reporting requirements, the respondent requested that procurement officers be identified for the BioPreferred Program.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates the comments. The Agency believes the efforts to streamline the BioPreferred Program will have positive impacts for participants and potential participants by establishing a single, efficient process through which products are determined to be qualified for a federal procurement preference and eligible to use the Label. The changes to the category designation process will also streamline the program for participants by making it quicker and easier to designate new categories, allowing more products to qualify for the federal procurement preference. The Agency notes that the BioPreferred Program does not itself procure products, and therefore, procurement officers are not needed within the BioPreferred Program. The Agency will continue its efforts to educate federal agencies (including procurement officers) and their contractors on the requirements for purchasing Qualified Biobased Products and reporting such purchases.

c. One respondent expressed general support for the BioPreferred Program. The respondent noted that the BioPreferred Program presents a significant opportunity to promote sustainability, innovation, and economic growth. The respondent also noted that the BioPreferred Program parallels the success of the National Organic Program, and by providing a clear framework for the certification and labeling of Biobased Products, the final rule will enhance consumer awareness of and confidence in Biobased Products in a similar manner to what the National Organic Program has done for organic products. The respondent further noted that the BioPreferred Program has the potential to create new avenues for job growth and economic development, particularly in rural communities. Additionally, the respondent noted that by incentivizing investment in Biobased Product research, production, and manufacturing, the BioPreferred Program can help bolster rural economies.

Agency Response: The Agency thanks the respondent for their support.

d. Three respondents recommended establishing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for Biobased Products with this final rule.

Agency Response: While establishing NAICS codes are outside the scope of the request for comment on the proposed rule, the Agency strongly agrees that it is necessary to establish NAICS codes for Biobased Products and will share these comments with the Department of Commerce. The Agency will continue its efforts to encourage the Department of Commerce to establish NAICS codes for Biobased Products and will continue to offer support as needed to advance these efforts.

e. One respondent recommended making updates to the BioPreferred Program website to make it more consumer friendly.

Agency Response: The Agency appreciates this comment. While this is outside the scope for the proposed rule request for comment, the Agency agrees that the BioPreferred Program's website is in need of updates to make information easier to find and understand. The Agency is currently working to refresh the BioPreferred Program's website to make these changes.

f. One respondent recommended that the BioPreferred Program be incorporated into the Coordinated Framework established by section 8 of E.O. 14081.

Agency Response: This is outside the scope of the proposed rule request for comment.

g. One respondent requested the proposed rule plain language summary.

Agency Response: The Agency provided the appropriate information for locating the plain language summary at regulations.gov.

h. One respondent inquired whether there would be an interagency review of the proposed rule.

Agency Response: The proposed rule did not require official interagency review because the rulemaking was designated as non-significant.

The final rule will not include revisions based on the public comments received in response to the proposed rule. The final rule will include two technical amendments summarized below.

a. In the final rule, § 4270.7(a) is being revised to include the last sentence from 7 CFR 3201.7(a). While reviewing the public comments, the Agency determined that this stipulation was unintentionally excluded from the proposed rule language. This requirement is being added to the final rule language to clarify that manufacturers and vendors of Qualified Biobased Products may be asked to prove their Biobased Content claims regardless of whether they participate in the BioPreferred Program.

b. In addition, § 4270.7(c)(2)(i) is being revised to correct the notation used in the Complex Assemblies equation. The proposed rule used “of the nth component” and the final rule is being revised to correct this to “of the ith component.”

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This program is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as implemented under 2 CFR part 415.

The information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in this final rule will not be effective until approved by OMB, subject to the submission of a paperwork package submitted to OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, this final rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970. The Agency has determined that (i) this action meets the criteria established in 7 CFR 1970.53(f); (ii) no extraordinary circumstances exist; and (iii) the action is not “connected” to other actions with potentially significant impacts, is not considered a “cumulative action,” and is not precluded by 40 CFR 1506.1. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the action does not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

The final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.

The Administrative Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2023 (Act) (See Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, 137 Stat 31, div. B, title III) requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess agency compliance with the Act, which establishes requirements for administrative actions that affect direct spending, in GAO's major rule reports. The Act does not apply to this final rule because it does not increase direct spending.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this final rule: (1) unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that conflict with this final rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule except as specifically prescribed in the final rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before bringing suit in court that challenges action taken under this final rule.

Title II of the UMRA, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal Governments and on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and Final Rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year. When such a statement is needed for a final rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the final rule.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and Tribal Governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

The policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Consultation is also required for any regulation that preempts Tribal law or that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments and that is not required by statute.

The Agency has determined that this final rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require formal Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Agency will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

RD is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible and to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

RD has reviewed this final rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to identify any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital or familial status. Based on the review and analysis of the final rule and all available data, issuance of this final rule is not likely to negatively impact low and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes or persons with disability, by virtue of their age, race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or marital or familial status. No major civil rights impact is likely to result from this final rule.

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and 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 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:

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

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

c. Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

It is USDA's intention that the provisions of this final rule shall operate independently of each other. In the event that this final rule or any portion of this final rule is ultimately declared invalid or stayed as to a particular provision, it is USDA's intent that the final rule nonetheless be severable and remain valid with respect to those provisions not affected by a declaration of invalidity or stayed. USDA concludes it would separately adopt all of the provisions contained in this final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, USDA amends chapters XXXII and XLII of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Rural Development's Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Utilities Service are issuing corrections to the final rule that published September 30, 2024, at 89 FR 79698.

In FR Doc. 2024-21920 published September 30, 2024, beginning on page 79698, make the following corrections:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67908). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0025, dated January 24, 2024, issued by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that it was identified that for airplanes converted from passenger to cargo configuration using EASA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 10069551, Revision 1 (EASA STC 10069551, Revision 0, corresponds to FAA STC ST04602NY), or the previous EASA STC 2004-2872 (which corresponds to FAA STC S116-004NM, Revision 1), no height limitation for the cargo, when loaded in the cargo compartment, is defined. Consequently, operators of such airplanes may load the cargo up to the ceiling of the cargo compartment and, therefore, potentially affect the proper functioning of the smoke detectors. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to smoke not being detected in time, possibly resulting in an uncontrolled fire.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modification of the cargo compartment and implementation of updated cargo loading procedures. 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-2024-2129.

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

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

The FAA reviewed Sabena Technics Airworthiness Technical Instructions 0110-09-A-ATI-F01-R00, and 0110-11-A-ATI-F01-R00, both dated September 19, 2023. This material describes procedures for modifying the cargo compartment (installing a label and tape to indicate maximum cargo height). These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

The FAA also reviewed Sabena Technics Weight & Balance Manual Supplement 0110-09-A-2305-R06, Revision 06, dated September 15, 2023; and Sabena Technics Weight & Balance Manual Supplement 0110-11-A-2305-R07, Revision 07, dated September 15, 2023. The maximum cargo height in the cargo compartment is described in Section 2.9., “Cargo Compartment—Loading Limitation,” of Sabena Technics Weight & Balance Manual Supplement 0110-09-A-2305-R06, Revision 06, dated September 15, 2023; and section 2.11., “Cargo Compartment-Loading Limitation,” of Sabena Technics Weight & Balance Manual Supplement 0110-11-A-2305-R07, Revision 07, dated September 15, 2023. 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 2 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all 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 all Airbus SAS Model A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67575). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0057, dated February 28, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0057) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that during a quality review performed during manufacturing, a quality escape was identified on the Model A321NX door 3 slide and offwing slide inflation reservoirs' venting holes, where a torque strip indicator (material “Dykem”) had been applied on the orifice fitting (clogging the vent hole). This condition, in combination with a slide reservoir pressure loss, if not detected and corrected, could lead to deployment in flight of a non-inflated slide, possibly resulting in damage to, and reduced control of, the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection for discrepancies of affected parts (certain reservoirs having certain orifices) and replacement of discrepant affected parts, and prohibit installing affected parts, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0057. 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-2024-2025.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and United Airlines, who supported the NPRM without change.

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

EASA AD 2024-0057 specifies a general visual inspection of affected parts (certain reservoirs having certain orifices) for discrepancies (the presence of “Dykem” material on the orifice fitting) and replacement of discrepant affected parts, and prohibits installing affected parts. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 227 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 on-condition action 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:

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 The Boeing Company Model 767-300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2024 (89 FR 53370). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain cargo compartment insulation blankets do not adequately fit some locations and allow smoke to migrate past the cargo compartment sidewall liners and upward into the main cabin. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the cargo compartment insulation blankets. The FAA is issuing this AD to address inadequately fitting cargo compartment insulation blankets. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a fire in the bilge area of the cargo compartment, which if not contained could lead to a smoke and fire event in the passenger compartment.

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

The FAA also received comments from Boeing, Aviation Partners Boeing, and All Nippon Airways. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

All Nippon Airways and Boeing requested that the FAA add Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024, to the proposed AD. All Nippon Airways requested that Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024, be added to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to specify that the actions should be done in accordance with both Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550 Revision 2, dated December 18, 2023, and Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024. All Nippon Airways stated that Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024, provides changes regarding Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 2, dated December 18, 2023.

Boeing requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, (the “Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)” paragraph), to include language approving Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024, as an AMOC to the proposed AD. Boeing stated that Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024, applies to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 2, dated December 18, 2023, and was approved and published as an alternative to accomplishing the requirements specified by paragraph (g) of AD 2021-12-11 Amendment 39-21598 (86 FR 33112, June 24, 2021) (AD 2021-12-11).

The FAA notes that the approved FAA AMOC letter 522-24-00097, dated March 12, 2024, allows Boeing AMOC Notice 767-25-0550 AMOC 01, dated March 13, 2024, as an alternative to certain steps in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550 Revision 2, dated December 18, 2023. FAA AMOC letter 522-24-00097, dated March 12, 2024, was previously approved for use in AD-2021-12-11. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(4) of this AD to include FAA AMOC letter 522-24-00097, dated March 12, 2024, as an approved AMOC for the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect compliance with the proposed actions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that STC ST01920SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST01920SE 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, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0550, Revision 2, dated December 18, 2023. This material specifies procedures for replacing insulation blankets in the cargo compartment with insulation blankets with integrated fire stops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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 MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2D1F high-bypass turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2023 (88 FR 90134). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a Model MD-11F airplane equipped with three GE CF6-80C2D1F high-bypass turbofan engines experiencing an uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser in flight at low altitude. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time detailed inspection of the engine pylon thrust reverser control system wire harnesses; repetitive detailed inspections and wire integrity tests of the engine pylon thrust reverser control system wire harnesses, junction box assembly and junction box cover, left-side and right-side thrust reverser electrical harnesses, core (engine compartment) miscellaneous wire harness assembly, and 30-degree bulkhead wire harness assembly; and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA also proposed to require reporting inspection results. The FAA is issuing this AD to address uncommanded deployment of a thrust reverser in flight at low altitude, which could result in loss of flight control of the airplane and loss of continued safe flight and landing.

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

The FAA received additional comments from five commenters, including Boeing, FedEx Express (FedEx), United Parcel Service (UPS), and two individuals. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that the FAA delete the text “(in the pylon)” in the Summary and Material Incorporated by Reference under 1 CFR part 51 section of the NPRM. Boeing explained that the text “(in the pylon)” implies that the wire integrity tests shall be applied only to the pylon wiring as part of the repetitive wire integrity tests. Boeing stated that these tests also apply to the engine pylon thrust reverser control system wiring from the nose of the airplane.

The FAA agrees with the request. While a detailed inspection is performed on the wire harnesses in the pylon, the location for performing the wire integrity tests of the engine pylon thrust reverser control system wire harnesses is not limited to the pylon. The FAA has deleted the text “(in the pylon)” in this final rule accordingly.

FedEx expressed their concern regarding the workability of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023. FedEx stated that a prime example of complexity in Work Package 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, is Part 19, which requires actions to be concurrently performed on the left and right thrust reverser halves, instead of having two separate PARTs to perform required actions on each thrust reverser half independently from the other thrust reverser half. This results in the need to evaluate four possible conditions of the wire harnesses on the left and right thrust reverser halves. The commenter stated that due to complexity of the service bulletin as well as the sheer scope of the work being performed, a significant risk exists for introducing human errors during the accomplishment of the required work.

The FAA recognizes that the work instructions provided in this service bulletin are extensive and complex. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, was revised to Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, to correct errors and improve clarity. The FAA reviewed Revision 1 of the service bulletin and determined it provides adequate information. Although the work instructions provided in the original and revised service bulletins are extensive and complex, the actions specified in the service bulletin that is required by this AD are necessary to address the unsafe condition. This AD mandates Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, and provides credit for actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023. In addition, the exception in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD was addressed and corrected in Revision 1 of the service bulletin; therefore, paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD was removed from this AD. The current instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, and Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, can be followed without any major issue that would prevent accomplishment of the required actions. Further, additional actions in the revised service bulletin are intended for best maintenance practice and not necessary to address the unsafe condition. Those additional actions include the detailed inspection of the junction box assembly for any loose electrical connection in Step 1, Part 10, and application of torque to any loose electrical connection in Step 2, Part 11 of the revised service bulletin. Therefore, those parts in either the original or Revision 1 of the service bulletin are acceptable for compliance with the AD. For clarity, the FAA added a new exception to paragraph (h) of this AD specifying the added steps in Revision 1 of the service bulletin are not required for compliance with the AD.

FedEx stated that Work Package 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, is too broad in scope, and not supported or warranted by the results of the investigation. FedEx stated that a third protection feature to prevent in-flight thrust reverser deployment is not required for Model MD-11 airplanes since it was predicted that the airplane will be controllable with the thrust reverser deployed in air. FedEx stated that the outcome of the service event has served to validate this prediction. FedEx further stated that damaged wire bundles and grounds in the pylon discovered on the event airplane could have allowed energization of the pressure regulator shutoff valve (PRSOV) and directional pilot valve (DPV), which could result in in-flight thrust reverser deployment. No other element that could have contributed to the event was found by the investigation. Finally, FedEx stated that the actions in Work Package 2 will disturb the areas that are not routinely disturbed and therefore could introduce unintended consequences. FedEx added that to properly accomplish Work Package 2, it is necessary to expend significant resources to deal with the complexity and extent of the requirements, including training of personnel.

The FAA does not agree with the request. The FAA infers that FedEx is requesting that Work Package 2 be removed from the requirements of the AD. Although the event airplane was safely brought back to the ground after in-flight uncommanded thrust reverser deployment, this does not suggest that Model MD-11 airplanes will be controllable under any anticipated operating condition with the thrust reverser deployed in air. Model MD-11 airplanes have not been demonstrated for their controllability when the deployment of single or dual thrust reverser halves is encountered on any single engine at low altitudes under anticipated operating conditions. The wiring damage discovered in the pylon of the event airplane was for the PRSOV and DPV circuits, and the manufacturer concluded that this damage was a contributing factor to the event. However, it is unclear what conditions resulted in power-to-power short—instead of power-to-ground  1 (shield), which would not result in uncommanded thrust reverser deployment. Based on available data, it is likely that a combination of conditions needs to be encountered to result in uncommanded thrust reverser deployment. Considering the age of the affected fleet, undetected degradation in wiring installation could have contributed to the event. Such a latent wiring anomaly could make an airplane vulnerable to a single failure that would impose a significant risk. Work Package 1 requires inspections of wiring in the pylon to detect any damage, and this action is intended to eliminate any similar condition discovered on the event airplane in a quick and practical manner. Work Package 2 requires wire integrity tests in addition to inspections of various wiring harnesses, and those actions are necessary to prevent and detect a potential latent anomalous condition of wiring installation. The FAA agrees that those actions are extensive, and the areas affected by the required actions are not routinely disturbed. However, in the FAA's assessment, Work Package 2 (which specifies the same substantive requirements in both the original issue and Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017) is appropriate and necessary to understand and eliminate the root cause of the event, and the cost of any additional “significant resources” necessary to accomplish those actions would be outweighed by the safety benefits of the AD. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

FedEx requested that the FAA remove the inspection requirement for the junction box assembly included in Work Package 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023. FedEx stated that no chafed or burnt wires were found inside the junction box assembly of the event airplane or on numerous units examined as part of investigations. FedEx stated that removal of the junction box assembly for inspection will increase the risk of damage to the junction box assembly and surrounding wire harnesses.

The FAA does not agree with the request. Although the event airplane did not reveal any evidence directly linked to the PRSOV and DPV system wiring inside the junction box assembly, damage to those wires inside the junction box assembly could result in the same outcome encountered on the event airplane. The junction box assembly is a high-density area of wire routing, where wires with power are routed with the thrust reverser control wires. The inspection of the junction box assembly is intended to detect and eliminate any riding condition of wires since such condition could damage the thrust reverser control wires. The FAA does not have any data regarding the other units investigated. These units are subject to the same unsafe condition because of their similar design and installation. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

FedEx requested that the required actions on engine 2 (tail-mounted engine) be removed from the proposed AD. The commenter stated that in-flight deployment of a thrust reverser of engine 2 will have considerably less impact on controllability of the airplane than the wing-mounted engine 1 and engine 3. The commenter stated that wiring running through the wings and attaching structures are far more exposed to vibration and variable loading than those in the more stable tail structure. Because of the less harsh operating environment for engine 2, combined with the historical reliability and a lack of wire damage findings in the tail thrust reverser, FedEx concluded that the required actions on the engine are not justified.

The FAA does not agree with the request. As discussed earlier, Model MD-11 airplanes have not been demonstrated for their controllability when the deployment of single or dual thrust reverser halves is encountered on any single engine at low altitudes under anticipated operating conditions. Therefore, prevention of in-flight thrust reverser deployment is as critical for the tail-mounted engines as the wing-mounted engines. Also, routing of wire harnesses is not the same for the tail-mounted engines and wing-mounted engines as the wire routing is restricted by available space. Vibration is a factor that could contribute to wire chafing damage, but that is not the only factor. Available gaps between wire harnesses and surrounding structure as well as the types of wire support could also contribute to wire chafing damage. Therefore, an inspection of all engines, including engine 2, is critical and necessary. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

FedEx stated that the FAA considerably underestimated the economic impact to operators. FedEx claimed that the estimated costs in the NPRM completely ignored the expense of acquiring contingency material. Even if the inspections do not identify any out-of-limit conditions, operators must still be prepared for the eventuality of findings to prevent the possibility of extended grounding of airplanes. Preliminary attempts to acquire necessary spare materials have revealed little or no global supply. Boeing has not provided firm timelines for making spare materials available and pricing for this commitment. FedEx concluded that, because pricing has not been provided, it has not been correctly incorporated in the cost estimate of the NPRM.

The FAA acknowledges FedEx's concern but does not agree with the request. As explained in the NPRM, the FAA did not receive definitive data that would enable the FAA to provide a labor and parts cost estimate for the on-condition repairs or replacements. With regards to necessary parts, the manufacturer has been addressing this issue, and the FAA has concluded that the necessary spare materials would be available. To the extent spare parts may not exist to replace parts that fail the inspection requirements of this AD, the FAA cannot base its AD action on whether spare parts are available or can be produced. While every effort is made to avoid grounding aircraft, the FAA must address the unsafe condition. However, if parts availability becomes a problem during compliance with the AD requirements, operators may request approval of an extension of the compliance time as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, if the operator submits sufficient data to substantiate that an acceptable level of safety would be provided with such an extension. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

One individual requested that the FAA consider alternatives that could reduce the operational/economic burden on operators.

The commenter did not propose any alternative approach to addressing the unsafe condition. In developing the most appropriate solution, the FAA considered the recommendations of the manufacturer, the urgency associated with the unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. The FAA has determined that the cost to operators to comply with this AD, as proposed, is outweighed by the safety benefits.

FedEx requested revision of the parts necessary for each airplane section in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, to make it workable. The commenter stated that the information provided in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, regarding parts necessary for each airplane is incomplete and insufficient for operators to effectively plan for the execution of the service bulletin requirements. The commenter stated that determining part numbers necessary for accomplishing the required action by researching Boeing documents should not fall under the operator's responsibility. The service bulletin provides an option of repair, but it will still require identification and availability of specific wire and related electrical components. The commenter stated that all part numbers of potentially affected assemblies and components would need to be identified in the service bulletin, or the materials necessary for repair would need to be available for procurement.

Similarly, UPS requested a comprehensive parts list in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, as well as a source of suitable available spares, prior to the implementation of the AD. UPS added that the components such as wiring and connectors are out of production, and available parts are limited. UPS requested that the AD be delayed until a suitable parts list and spare source are determined.

The FAA does not agree with the requests. Regarding the parts information provided in the service bulletin, the manufacturer anticipated that new replacement parts for full wire harnesses or junction box assemblies would not be available from suppliers. Therefore, a repair would be the only available option to address damaged or failed parts, unless serviceable parts removed from an airplane are installed as replacement parts for an affected airplane. As stated previously, if parts availability becomes a problem during compliance with the AD requirements, an operator may request approval of an extension of the compliance time as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, if the operator submits sufficient data to substantiate that an acceptable level of safety would be provided with such an extension. The intent of the service bulletin was to provide sufficient information necessary to accomplish required actions instead of providing full details of all parts since providing such information for all wiring configurations would require a substantial amount of time for this urgent issue and may further complicate the service bulletin. Based on the information provided in the service bulletin and available documents, such as wiring diagrams, the illustrated parts catalog, and drawings, the operators should be able to determine the necessary parts for repairs. The manufacturer confirmed that they would support operators to confirm the necessary parts for accomplishing the required actions. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

FedEx requested that an instruction be added in the AD regarding how a required condition should be handled when the condition provides multiple options. The commenter stated that instructions identified as required for compliance (RC) are also identified as an option that is contingent on certain conditions being met and a choice being made by the operator. The commenter expressed a concern that if this is not directly addressed in the language of the AD, it is anticipated that these RC options will be difficult to deal with when maintenance work cards are generated, putting the technicians in the position of making a choice to sign off an AD-required step as not applicable for the option not taken.

The FAA does not agree with the comment. In addition to Section 1.E., Compliance, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, or Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, Note 13 in Section 3.A. of the service bulletin provides the instruction on how to handle a required condition when multiple options are provided under that condition. This instruction provided by a general note has been used in numerous service bulletins and is not unique to this specific service bulletin. Therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat this instruction in the AD. No further changes have been made to this AD regarding this request.

FedEx stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, does not provide sufficient detail to ensure that wire harness insulation resistance checks in Parts 6 through 8 in the service bulletin are performed properly. The commenter recommended including a statement that each of the checks should be measured against ground. The commenter also stated that unless precautionary or explanatory statements are included to indicate application of 500V between the pins and each of the other contacts on the same connector may damage other components on the circuit, uncertainty around validating the test may result.

The FAA does not agree with the request. The insulation resistance check is a standard practice. The operators are expected to follow applicable instructions in the standard wiring practice manual to perform the test for the connectors specified in the service bulletin. The test requirement is to measure between every pin and ground (shielding) and between all two adjacent pins. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

FedEx stated that the instructions for Part 19 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, are too vague since the specific connectors and pins are not identified. FedEx added that Boeing does not have adequate data to specify the detail since the harnesses to be tested are not controlled by Boeing. This lack of detail places the burden onto the operators to ensure that the tests are performed as intended. The commenter does not believe the instructions in the service bulletin are adequate to ensure successful compliance.

The FAA does not agree with the request. As the commenter stated, the manufacturer does not have the details of the pins or connectors, as the data for the wire harnesses is not controlled by Boeing. Further, due to the urgency of the unsafe condition, the FAA cannot delay issuance of this final rule further for Boeing to identify the connectors or pins. This will place the burden on the operators, but the operators should utilize available data and ensure that the tests are performed adequately based on input provided by the manufacturer. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

FedEx requested revision of the work instructions in Part 13 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, which requires an inspection of the internal surface of the junction box cover per Figure 13 for burn marks, signs of arcing, and fretting. The commenter stated that many inspected junction boxes' covers exhibited smudges and discoloration that can be misinterpreted as soot and burn residual, rather than the dust from the harness lacings rubbing against the cover. The instructions as currently written may result in many false findings. The commenter requested that a note be added to the service bulletin to call attention to the possibility of the benign discoloration and allow for the presence of such residue.

The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA agrees that the work instructions in Part 13 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, may result in false findings. However, this AD will require Revision 1 of the service bulletin. The work instructions in Part 13 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, have been updated to eliminate the potential misinterpretation of the conditions found on the junction box cover during the inspection. No change to this AD has been made as a result of this comment.

FedEx requested that Figures 14 and 15 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, be revised to remove the minimum clearance requirement between the wire harnesses and the junction box cover or to add a clarification stating that contact between the junction box cover and lacing material is acceptable. In the alternative, FedEx asked that the language of the proposed AD be revised to add an exemption to the minimum clearance requirement in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. The commenter noted that Parts 14 and 15 of the service bulletin require a minimum clearance of 0.20 inch between the junction box cover and the wire bundles inside the junction box assembly. However, there is no instruction to confirm that this minimum clearance is maintained when the junction box cover is closed. The commenter stated that the wire harnesses inside the junction box assembly are very stiff and rigid and generally cannot be appreciably compacted. Although this condition may result in minor interference of the lacings with the cover, the commenter has not found any evidence of wire damage resulting from this contact.

The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA agrees that the instructions to achieve the required minimum clearance were unclear in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023. The work instructions have been revised in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, for clarification. However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, or Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, does not allow contact between the junction box cover and lacing material since such a condition may eventually result in wire damage. No change has been made to this AD as a result of this comment.

FedEx noted multiple errors and typographical errors in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, and requested revision of the service bulletin to correct these errors and typographical errors.

The errors and typographical errors identified by the commenter have been corrected in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, which is the primary source of service information in this AD. No change has been made to this AD as a result of this comment.

FedEx requested revision of the compliance time of the reporting requirement in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. The commenter stated that the proposed compliance time of 30 days is inadequate to prepare the data package and submit the reports. The commenter stated they do not understand the urgency of the reporting requirement considering the overall compliance span of the AD.

The FAA agrees that the proposed compliance time of 30 days for the reporting requirement is unnecessarily short considering the burden on the operators and the intent that those reports will be used for root cause assessment while managing the potential risk by the inspections. The FAA has revised the compliance time of paragraph (i) of this AD to 90 days accordingly.

FedEx requested that the FAA eliminate the reporting requirement of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD or revise the requirements to clarify what must be reported to meet the compliance criteria. The commenter was concerned that the reporting criteria in the service bulletin are open-ended and could be misinterpreted as to what qualifies as reportable and what level of detail is required. The commenter stated that because of the breadth of the reporting criteria involved, it would be extremely hard to definitively comply with the reporting requirement. Also, the commenter stated that the relationship between Boeing and the operators should be sufficient to ensure that findings will be provided to Boeing without a mandatory reporting requirement.

The FAA partially agrees with the request.

The FAA agrees to revise the reporting criteria for clarification so that the results of the inspections or tests are reported in a consistent manner. The reporting form in Appendix C of the original service bulletin was updated in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024. The updated reporting forms in Appendixes C through E of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, provide clear instructions to address the concern expressed by the commenter.

The FAA disagrees, however, with the request to remove the reporting requirement in paragraph (i) of this AD. The findings provided by the reports will be used for the root cause assessment and the development of a final corrective action. Therefore, the reporting requirement is a critical piece of this interim action AD.

UPS requested that the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, remain as an optional inspection until the root cause can be determined.

The FAA does not agree with the request. As discussed in the preamble of the NPRM, wiring damage was found in the engine pylon of the event airplane. The root cause of uncommanded thrust reverser deployment has not been determined yet, but the manufacturer concluded that wiring damage was a contributing factor of the event based on the assessment of on-wing data and laboratory inspection. The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The FAA issues an interim action AD when, for example, an unsafe condition that requires a mitigating action relatively quickly is identified on airplanes, but the root cause leading to the unsafe condition is still undetermined due to limited available data. In this case, the interim mitigating action is needed to address the overall risk of the unsafe condition. Based on the FAA's assessment, the actions required by this AD would mitigate the unsafe condition in the interim period while additional inspection data would allow the manufacturer to determine the root cause and develop an adequate corrective action. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

UPS requested that the effective date of the AD be extended until Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017 is revised. UPS stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, identified in the NPRM is unworkable due to discrepancies and disagreements between the configurations specified in the instructions and the actual installation.

Because this AD has been changed to mandate Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024, which clarifies these instructions, no further change is necessary to this AD as a result of this comment. The manufacturer also worked with the operators to ensure that the work instructions in Revision 1 can be accomplished. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

UPS requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to extend the compliance time of Work Package 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, to 27 months from the current proposal of 12 months. UPS stated that the labor estimate provided in the service bulletin underestimates the tasks involved in Work Package 1. UPS estimated that about 700 work-hours would be involved, while Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, estimated 134.25 hours. Considering extensive work-hours and limited parts availability, UPS stated that the proposed compliance time of 12 months does not provide sufficient time to accomplish the required actions for the affected fleet.

The FAA does not agree with the request. The FAA infers that the labor estimates provided by UPS include the labor necessary for repairs. The labor estimates provided in the service bulletin do not include the labor necessary for repairs since a repair is an on-condition action that would be affected by the extent of the damage discovered on the affected parts. The FAA recognizes that a gap would exist between the estimates provided in the service bulletin and the actual labor needed for each airplane because of those on-condition actions. The FAA established the compliance time so that operators can accomplish this interim mitigation action in a quick and practical manner, considering the potential effect of the unsafe condition. The FAA also assessed parts availability and necessary labor and determined that the compliance time of 12 months would be appropriate for Work Package 1. Operators can request approval of an extension of the compliance time in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD if operators can provide the evidence that would make the required compliance time impractical and justification for maintaining an acceptable level safety with such an extension. This AD has not been changed regarding these requests.

UPS requested that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be revised to include spare engines and thrust reversers in the AD applicability. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, requires inspections and repair of the components for the engines and thrust reversers, an engine or thrust reverser on which the actions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, were accomplished may be replaced with an engine or thrust reverser on which the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, dated December 4, 2023, have not been accomplished.

The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA understands the concern of an AD-compliant engine or thrust reverser being inadvertently replaced with a non-AD-compliant engine or thrust reverser. However, the AD is issued to address the unsafe condition identified at the airplane level. The affected airplanes must be maintained in the AD-compliant configuration once each airplane is demonstrated to be compliant with the AD. Installing an engine or thrust reverser that has not been inspected or tested as required by this AD on an airplane that was demonstrated to be compliant with the AD is not allowed since such an action will bring the airplane back to a non-AD-compliant configuration, unless the engine or thrust reverser is inspected or tested as required by the AD prior to returning the airplane back to service. It is the operator's responsibility to maintain each airplane in the AD-compliant configuration. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

An individual commenter recommended that the FAA analyze the frequency of the occurrence of uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in air and determine a specific interval for this inspection.

Although the FAA agrees with the intent behind this request, it is not necessary to change the AD based on this request. The FAA already assessed the aspect the commenter raised. The FAA has assessed the risk of in-flight thrust reverser deployment, considering the frequency of occurrence based on available data, and determined that the compliance times for the initial and repetitive inspections are adequate. As discussed in the preamble of the NPRM, the actions required by this AD are considered an interim action. Additional data to be provided by the operators through the reporting requirement of this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the potential conditions that led to the event. Based on the information provided by those reports, the FAA may consider further rulemaking.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024. This material specifies Work Package 1 inspection procedures to do an initial detailed inspection of the engine 1, engine 2, and engine 3 pylon thrust reverser control system wire harnesses. The material also specifies Work Package 2 procedures to do repetitive detailed inspections and wire integrity tests at the following locations: engine 1, engine 2, and engine 3 thrust reverser control system wire harnesses; junction box assembly and junction box cover (only detailed inspection); left side and right side thrust reverser electrical harnesses; core (engine compartment) miscellaneous wire harness assembly; and 30-degree bulkhead wire harness assembly. The material also specifies applicable on-condition actions (including repairs, replacements, installations, post-replacement inspections and tests, and return to service tests). The material also specifies that accomplishing the initial inspections and tests by doing Action 1 through Action 3 in Work Package 2 terminates the need to do the inspection in accordance with Part 2 as required in Work Package 1. However, this substitution of actions does not change the compliance time of Work Package 1 as specified in Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-78A017, Revision 1, dated June 4, 2024.

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

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The reports that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the unsafe condition, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 79 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 inspections and tests. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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 2018-18-09, Amendment 39-19388 (83 FR 45041, September 5, 2018) (AD 2018-18-09). AD 2018-18-09 applied to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and certain Model C-295 airplanes. AD 2018-18-09 required a detailed inspection of the upper and lower lugs of each horizontal stabilizer-to-fuselage rear attachment fitting, repair if necessary, and a report of findings. The FAA issued AD 2018-18-09 to address cracking, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the lugs on the horizontal stabilizer-to-fuselage rear attachment fittings. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in lug or fitting failure, and could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024 (89 FR 70582). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0049, dated February 20, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0049) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that since EASA AD 2017-0218, dated November 8, 2017, was issued, new occurrences of cracking were reported and the manufacturer issued new material to provide instructions for repetitive high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the affected part for all airplanes.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0049. The NPRM also proposed to revise the applicability. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the lugs on the horizontal stabilizer-to-fuselage rear attachment fittings and consequent lug or fitting failure, and could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2134.

The FAA received comments from a commenter who supported the NPRM without change.

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

EASA AD 2024-0049 specifies procedures for repetitive HFEC inspections for discrepancies (including cracking, rework, and sharp corner radii) of the upper and lower lugs of each horizontal stabilizer-to-fuselage rear attachment fitting and contacting the manufacturer for corrective actions. 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 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA 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 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2023 (88 FR 47402). The NPRM was prompted by a crack growth analysis, which indicated that current inspections are not adequate to detect cracks in certain sections of the upper frame at the frame splice between certain stringers before a single frame fails. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection or records review for existing repairs, repetitive inspections for cracks of the upper frame at the frame splices between certain stringers in certain sections, and applicable on-condition actions.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2024 (89 FR 29274). The SNPRM was prompted by a determination that the repetitive inspection intervals for airplanes that were modified by Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE needed to be revised. The SNPRM proposed to require the actions specified in the NPRM, with certain revised compliance times.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking at the upper frames common to the splice at stringers S-13 to S-14, which could interact with fuselage skin cracking at the stringer S-14 lap splice. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads, and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

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

The FAA received additional comments from FedEx Express, United Airlines (United), and European Air Transport Leipzig GmbH (EATL). The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

FedEx Express noted that its 757 fleet has been modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT, passenger-to-freighter modification for Model 757-200 series airplanes, which adds a main deck cargo door to the airplane. After consultation with the STC holder, FedEx Express requested modifications for Groups 1, 2, and 3 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115, dated January 25, 2022, for airplanes modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT. FedEx Express requested using the different figures from the requirements bulletin for the factory freighter airplanes along with shorter repeat intervals associated with those figures. FedEx Express stated that all other figures along with the method of inspections called out in the requirements bulletin will be complied with according to their respective effectivity.

The FAA finds no justification for airplanes modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT to utilize the inspections, methods, and intervals in Groups 1, 2, and 3 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115, dated January 25, 2022. FedEx did not provide sufficient justification and data for airplanes modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT to support a revision to this AD. Operators must request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for airplanes modified by VT MAE STC ST03562AT to address the unsafe condition of this AD and comply with its requirements. For those airplanes, the FAA has added paragraph (h)(4) of this AD to provide an exception to the actions specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115, dated January 25, 2022.

United stated that the proposed requirement to divide the applicable compliance times and repeat intervals specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115, dated January 25, 2022, by a factor of two is excessive and could create an undue burden on the operators. United added that the FAA did not provide details regarding how it determined requiring a reduction in compliance by a factor of two. United understood that a reduction is necessary because APB does not yet have an approved service bulletin to provide its compliance requirements. However, United believed the reduction required by APB will likely show a factor of two is not an accurate determination.

EATL stated the proposed exception in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD includes strong penalties for airplanes equipped with winglets, as modified by APB STC ST01518SE. EATL noted Boeing and APB usually work closely together to align impacts generated by installation of winglets, which is then included in the compliance tables of the requirements bulletin. EATL added that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115, dated January 25, 2022, does not include such penalties or any indication that installation of winglets affects the compliance times.

EATL stated the proposed exception in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD would prevent airplanes equipped with winglets, as modified by APB STC ST01518SE, from scheduling the inspections required by this AD during base maintenance events. EATL requested that the FAA re-evaluate halving the applicable compliance times and repeat intervals specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115, dated January 25, 2022.

The FAA stated the reduction in compliance by a factor of two is to allow for APB to complete its evaluation of airplanes with APB STC ST01518SE installed. The FAA determined this is a conservative and appropriate compliance time for this AD. No changes have been made to 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, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0115 RB, dated January 25, 2022. This material specifies procedures for a general visual inspection (GVI) or records review between stringers S-13 and S-14 in Sections 43 and 46 for existing repairs. This material also describes procedures, depending on the configuration, for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracking of the upper frames and splice doublers at the frame splices between stringers S-13 and S-14, left- and right-hand sides, in Sections 43 and 46; and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair.

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

Background

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 Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2024 (89 FR 20144). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-40, dated June 13, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-40) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that there have been in-service occurrences of pilot and co-pilot seats becoming locked in a fore-aft position due to disconnection of the seat fore-aft adjustment mechanism caused by a broken cotter pin in the seat base egress linkage.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the pilot and co-pilot seats by replacing the hardware of the seat base egress, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-40. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the disconnection of the seat fore-aft adjustment mechanism caused by a broken cotter pin in the seat base egress linkage. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a significant increase in crew workload for continued safe flight and landing.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0468.

The FAA received comments from two commenters, including Collins Aerospace and Delta Airlines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Collins Aerospace and Delta requested that the FAA edit paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD so that it would allow the use of later service information. Paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD would mandate Goodrich Interiors Service Bulletin 1430-25-003, Revision C, dated November 22, 2022.

The FAA disagrees with the request. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-40, dated June 13, 2023, refers to “Airbus Canada Service Bulletin (SB) BD500-251006, Issue 001, dated 05 April 2023, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada,” but does not specifically allow later-approved revisions of any service information cited in that Airbus Canada service bulletin. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

Delta requested clarification of the wording in (h)(3) of the proposed AD where it is specified to “Do Goodrich Interiors Service Bulletin 1430-25-003” and to update paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD to include either “refer to” or “in accordance with.” The commenter would like clarification whether the verb “do” implies “refer to” or “in accordance with.” Conditional on the FAA's concurrence with this request, Delta also requested an additional similar exception be included in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow accomplishment of the operational test specified in Goodrich Interiors Service Bulletin 1430-25-003 instructions for the Function Check under Section 3.F. using the A220 AMP Task BD500-A-J25-11-00-01AAA-320A-A in lieu of CMM 25-11-20.

The FAA disagrees with changing paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to include “refer to” or “in accordance with.” To clarify, this AD and the service information use the word “do” to communicate what operators need to accomplish, and therefore indicates a required action.

Delta requested the addition of the following paragraph: “(h)(4) As the Goodrich Interiors Service Bulletin 1430-25-003 have instructions of removal and installation of the affected seats from the seat tracks, this AD allows the seat removal and installation procedures using the AMP procedures as listed in the procedure of Service Bulletin BD500-251006 Issue No. 001, dated 05 April 2023, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada.” Airbus SB BD500-251006 Issue 001 Procedures section and Goodrich Interiors SB 1430-25-003 Accomplishment Instructions section both state that the pilot seats need to be removed, so the commenter is concerned with confusion due to both service bulletins giving instructions to perform the same tasks.

The FAA agrees that the repetition of steps in the Airbus and Goodrich Interiors SB could lead to confusion if operators are trying to follow SB steps. The AD should clarify what procedures the operators should follow because operators may not know whether they are in compliance with this AD if there are steps that cannot be accomplished. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(4) to this AD to allow the use of only Airbus SB BD500-251006, Issue 001, dated April 5, 2023, for seat removal and installation procedures.

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

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-40 specifies procedures for modifying the pilot and co-pilot seats by replacing the hardware of the seat base egress linkage. 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 23 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all 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 to supersede AD 2022-24-05, Amendment 39-22245 (87 FR 74291, December 5, 2022) (AD 2022-24-05). AD 2022-24-05 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2022-24-05 required repetitive inspections of certain galleys for corrosion of trolley retainer aluminum blocks and delamination of the upper panel of the trolley compartment, and applicable corrective actions. The FAA issued AD 2022-24-05 to address damage that could affect the galley's capability to hold the trolley under emergency landing loads, which could lead to trolley detachment, possibly resulting in blocking of an escape path during an emergency exit.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58086). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0038, dated February 5, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0038) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the list of affected galleys has been revised, and Airbus and the galley manufacturer have developed a modification to restore the design integrity of the affected galleys.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2022-24-05, provide optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections, revise the list of affected parts, and prohibit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0038. 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-2024-1890.

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

Airbus requested  1 that the FAA revise the NPRM to include a missing forward-facing galley part number. Airbus stated that the missing part number is 601891-006801, which is derived from the delivered part number 601891-001501 by the optional vendor service bulletin 601891-25-001501-002, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin 25-1BK4.

The FAA agrees to include forward-facing galley, part number 601891-006801, in this AD. Part number 601891-006801 is derived from the unsafe part number 601891-001501; therefore, part number 601891-006801 has the same unsafe condition. The FAA confirmed with EASA that part number 601891-006801 is an affected part. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(5) of this AD to include part number 601891-006801 as an affected part.

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

EASA AD 2024-0038 includes the following provisions:

• Procedures for repetitive general visual inspections of certain galleys for discrepancies including corrosion of trolley retainer aluminum blocks and delamination of upper panel of trolley compartment;

• Corrective actions including repeating the inspection at an earlier interval, repairing the trolley compartment upper panel, and limiting the trolley weight;

• Procedures for modifying the affected galleys as optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections;

• A revised the list of affected galleys; and

• Prohibition of the installation of affected parts unless the parts are inspected and corrected.

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 1,425 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 on-condition action 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:

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 to supersede AD 2023-03-09, Amendment 39-22334 (88 FR 12139, February 27, 2023) (AD 2023-03-09). AD 2023-03-09 applied to certain ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes. AD 2023-03-09 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-03-09 to address fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2024 (89 FR 67329). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0053, dated February 23, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0053) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2023-03-09 and to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0053. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2128.

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

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

EASA AD 2024-0053, dated February 23, 2024, specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. EASA AD 2024-0053 states that the new limitations include repetitive operational tests as required by EASA AD 2020-0249R1, dated November 30, 2021 (EASA AD 2020-0249R1).

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0201, dated September 26, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of April 3, 2023 (88 FR 12139, February 27, 2023).

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

EASA AD 2020-0249, dated November 11, 2020, corresponds to FAA AD 2020-26-17, Amendment 39-21372 (85 FR 81795, December 17, 2020) (AD 2020-26-17), which applies to Model ATR42 and ATR72 airplanes. Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2020-26-17 for Model ATR72 airplanes.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-05-02, Amendment 39-22371 (88 FR 15600, March 14, 2023) (AD 2023-05-02). AD 2023-05-02 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2023-05-02 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-05-02 to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2024 (89 FR 73608). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0046, dated February 19, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0046) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain all of the requirements of EASA AD 2023-05-02. The FAA also proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0046. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. Such effects could change system characteristics. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2139.

The FAA received comments from three commenters, including Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and two individuals, who supported the NPRM without change.

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

EASA AD 2024-0046 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0102, dated June 8, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of April 18, 2023 (88 FR 15600, March 14, 2023).

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,920 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-05-02 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2024 (89 FR 24745). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-71, dated October 16, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-71) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that during a review of the certification test of the overhead bin configuration (also referred to as overhead storage compartment), it was discovered that the aft serrated hook attachment could fail when the overhead bin is subjected to the 9G forward emergency landing condition certification requirements. A design review revealed that a tolerance buildup could lead to a lack of engagement between the serrated hooks and the supporting serrated tube. This condition leads to a lack of forward load reaction capability, which is essential during an emergency landing, and could result in displacement of the overhead bins. As a result, the overhead bins could fall on the occupants and/or prevent access to emergency exits.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing existing overhead bin hook assemblies and support tubes with a different type, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-71. 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-2024-0995.

The FAA received comments from Air Wisconsin Airlines. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Air Wisconsin Airlines requested that the FAA list the serial numbers the proposed AD is applicable to, instead of stating the proposed AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-71. The commentator stated Transport Canada AD CF-2023-71 lists the applicable serial numbers.

The FAA disagrees with the request. As noted by the commenter, paragraph (c) of this AD states that this AD applies to Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-71, which lists the affected serial numbers. This AD was developed using the “incorporate by reference (IBR) the MCAI” method, which simplifies FAA ADs and facilitates a simpler AD process. The applicability of FAA ADs developed using the IBR the MCAI process identifies the airplane models that are on the U.S. type certificate data sheet and refers to the MCAI AD for the specific affected airplanes. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Air Wisconsin Airlines requested the FAA amend the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph in the NPRM to include an additional 120 hours if actions are not completed during a “heavy check.” The commenter stated that the estimate of 21 labor hours does not account for the removal and installation of interior products ( e.g., seats, sidewall, panels, ceiling panels, etc.) as specified in one of the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) tasks.

The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has revised the “Costs of Compliance” paragraph of this final rule accordingly.

Air Wisconsin Airlines requested the addition of MHI RJ Reference Instruction Letter (RIL) 10059, Revision A, dated June 6, 2024, to the proposed AD because AMM Task 25-23-01-400-805 was not yet published in the AMM. The commenter stated that MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-25-206, dated June 29, 2023, instructs installation of overhead bins and references AMM Task 25-23-01-400-805.

The FAA agrees with this request. MHI RJ Reference Instruction Letter (RIL) 10059, Revision A, dated June 6, 2024, may also be referred to for the installation of overhead bins. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(3) to this AD accordingly.

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.

Transport Canada AD CF-2023-71 specifies procedures for the replacement of the existing serrated hook assemblies and serrated support tubes with hook assemblies using a shear pin and non-serrated support tubes on the overhead bins.

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

The FAA estimates this AD affects 230 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA'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 the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-1707 in the Federal Register (89 FR 50537; June 14, 2024), proposing to amend VOR Federal Airways V-68, V-76, V-212, V-222, and V-558, and United States RNAV Route T-220 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Industry, TX, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent the NPRM, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-0485 in the Federal Register (89 FR 67853, August 22, 2024; corrected September 30, 2024 (89 FR 79429)), amending VOR Federal Airway V-76 by removing the airway segment between the San Angelo, TX, VORTAC and the Industry, TX, VORTAC. As amended, V-76 was changed to extend between the Lubbock, TX, VORTAC and the San Angelo, TX, VORTAC, effective October 31, 2024. As a result of that final rule, the proposed V-76 amendment in this airspace docket is removed.

Additionally, the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2024-0485 (89 FR 67853, August 22, 2024; corrected September 30, 2024 (89 FR 79429)) amended V-558 by removing the airway segment between the Llano, TX, VORTAC and the Centex, TX, VORTAC. As amended, V-558 was changed to extend between the Centex, TX, VORTAC and the Industry, TX, VORTAC, effective October 31, 2024. That amendment is included in this action.

VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 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 amending VOR Federal Airways V-68, V-212, and V-222, and RNAV Route T-220; and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-558. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Industry, TX, VORTAC NAVAID. The Air Traffic Service route actions are described below.

V-68: Prior to this final rule, V-68 extended between the Montrose, CO, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Industry, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment between the San Antonio, TX, VORTAC and the Industry VORTAC is removed. Additionally, the designated Federal airway floor information in the airway description between the Corona, NM, VORTAC and the Chisum, NM, VORTAC is removed also. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Montrose VOR/DME and the San Antonio VORTAC.

V-212: Prior to this final rule, V-212 extended between the Industry, TX, VORTAC and the Mc Comb, MS, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Industry VORTAC and the Navasota, TX, VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Navasota VOR/DME and the Mc Comb VORTAC.

V-222: Prior to this final rule, V-222 extended between the El Paso, TX, VORTAC and the Humble, TX, VORTAC; and between the Lake Charles, LA, VORTAC and the intersection of the LaGrange, GA, VORTAC 048° and Rome, GA, VORTAC 166° radials (TIROE Fix). The airway segment between the Stonewall, TX, VORTAC and the Humble, TX, VORTAC is removed. Additionally, the designated Federal airway floor information in the airway description between the Fort Stockton, TX, VORTAC and the Junction, TX, VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the El Paso VORTAC and the Stonewall VORTAC, and between the Lake Charles VORTAC and the TIROE Fix.

V-558: Prior to this final rule, V-558 extended between the Centex, TX, VORTAC and the Industry, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Centex VORTAC and the Industry VORTAC is removed; therefore, the airway is removed in its entirety.

T-220: Prior to this final rule, T-220 extended between the Industry, TX, VORTAC and the Sabine Pass, TX, VOR/DME. The Industry VORTAC route point is replaced with the MNURE, TX, WP located approximately 2 nautical miles north of the Industry VORTAC and the route is extended westward from the MNURE WP to the MARCS, TX, Fix. As amended, the route is changed to now extend between the MARCS Fix and the Sabine Pass VORTAC. The full T-220 route description is listed in the regulatory text of this final rule.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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 amending VOR Federal Airways V-68, V-212, and V-222, and United States RNAV Route T-220; and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-558, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Industry, TX, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, 26 December 2024.

The Department has established a docket for this action on the www.regulations.gov site under Docket DOJ-OAG-2022-0001. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website.

On December 16, 2020, the Department issued a regulation prohibiting, subject to limited exceptions, the inclusion of provisions in settlement agreements directing or providing for a payment or loan, in cash or in kind, to any non-governmental person or entity not a party to a dispute. Prohibition on Settlement Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties, 85 FR 81409 (“the December 2020 Rule”) (adding 28 CFR 50.28). On May 10, 2022, DOJ published for public comment an interim final rule (“IFR”) that revoked the December 2020 Rule, Guidelines and Limitations for Settlement Agreements Involving Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties, 87 FR 27936.

The IFR also solicited public comment on an Attorney General memorandum posted on the DOJ website in conjunction with the IFR, the Memorandum for the Heads of Department Components and United States Attorneys from the Attorney General, Re: Guidelines and Limitations for Settlement Agreements Involving Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties (May 5, 2022) (the “May 2022 Memorandum”), https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2022/05/05/02._ag_guidlines_and_limitations_memorandum_0.pdf (last visited Oct. 31, 2024).

This preamble responds to comments received on the IFR. As reflected in this preamble, the Department is not making any changes to the rule or to the May 2022 Memorandum.

That said, DOJ is using the opportunity of this final rule to publicly announce that it will add two provisions to the section of the Justice Manual ( https://www.justice.gov/jm/justice-manual ) addressing third-party payments, section 1-17.000, Settlement Agreements Involving Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties, as discussed later in this preamble.

The Department, as explained in this preamble, has concluded that its action in May 2022 to revoke 28 CFR 50.28 and establish the current policy continues to be appropriate. The Department has authority to settle litigation incident to the Attorney General's power to supervise litigation for the United States. Authority of the United States to Enter Settlements Limiting the Future Exercise of Executive Branch Discretion, 23 Op. O.L.C. 126, 135 (1999) (“ Authority of the United States to Enter Settlements ”). The Department regularly settles civil and criminal matters to compensate victims, redress harms, and punish and deter unlawful conduct without the costs and delay that can accompany trials. For decades and across Administrations, Department components entered into settlement agreements that involved payments to certain third parties as a means of addressing harms arising from violations of Federal law.

It has been the consistent view of the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”), acknowledged when the December 2020 Rule was promulgated, that settlements involving payments to non-governmental third parties can comport with the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (“MRA”), 31 U.S.C. 3302(b). See Memorandum for William P. Barr, Attorney General, from Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Final Rule Prohibiting Settlement Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties at 2 (Dec. 4, 2020) (“December 2020 OLC Memo”) (citing Application of the Government Corporation Control Act and the Miscellaneous Receipts Act to the Canadian Softwood Lumber Settlement Agreement, 30 Op. O.L.C. 111, 119 (2006) (“ Softwood Lumber ”)), https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-library/foia-processed/general_topics/settlement_guidelines_third_parties_2_14_23/download (last visited Oct. 31, 2024).

In 2017, the Attorney General issued a memorandum prohibiting Department attorneys from entering into case resolutions in civil and criminal matters providing for certain third-party payments. See Memorandum for All Component Heads and United States Attorneys from the Attorney General, Re: Prohibition on Settlement Payments to Third Parties (June 6, 2017). In 2020, through the December 2020 Rule, the Department amended its regulations to add 28 CFR 50.28, memorializing prohibitions set forth in the 2017 memorandum and additionally expressly prohibiting expenditure of funds “to provide goods or services to third parties for Supplemental Environmental Projects.” 85 FR 81410.

In 2022, after considering the views of the Department's components and their experience with 28 CFR 50.28, the Attorney General concluded that the regulations at 28 CFR 50.28 were too restrictive and should be revoked, see 87 FR 27937, and issued an IFR revoking 28 CFR 50.28, see 87 FR 27936-38. The Attorney General determined that, when properly tailored, agreements providing for payments to third parties are lawful and allow the United States to more fully accomplish the goals of civil and criminal enforcement. Id. at 27937. For example, the Department usually seeks a penalty and injunctive relief to resolve violations of Federal environmental statutes. However, the harms caused by these violations, including harms to the communities most directly impacted by them, can be difficult to redress in particular cases. Id. For instance, in environmental enforcement cases, the Department may seek a defendant's agreement to make third-party payments in the form of a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”) to counteract some of the downstream effects of a violation, and often as well to prevent future harm. Id. A SEP is a type of project or activity that a defendant undertakes as part of the settlement of an environmental enforcement action. As an illustration, a defendant refinery that violated its Clean Air Act permit by emitting excess volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) agreed to perform a SEP to abate lead-based paint hazards in child-occupied facilities and lower-income residences located within a 50-mile radius of the refinery, in addition to an appropriate penalty and other relief. VOCs can accelerate the weathering and deterioration of lead-based paint, increasing potential lead exposure. The project, therefore, was designed to reduce a downstream harm to local residents, exacerbated by the defendant's conduct.

The May 2022 Memorandum contains important safeguards to ensure that case resolutions containing third-party payments are appropriately tailored. Permissible settlements with third-party payments must satisfy conditions that define with particularity the nature and scope of any third-party project; require a strong connection between the underlying violation(s) and the project; prevent the Federal Government from proposing the selection of a particular third party to receive payments; restrict the Federal Government's role after a settlement is entered; require that such settlements occur before an admission or finding of liability in favor of the United States; prohibit use of such settlements to satisfy existing statutory obligations or to provide additional resources to perform any activity for which a Federal agency receives a specific appropriation; and prohibit certain practices such as unrestricted cash donations. May 2022 Memorandum at 3. Such settlements are also subject to approval by the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General. Id. at 3-4.

The May 2022 Memorandum also exempts four types of payments from these requirements, including payments providing restitution to non-party victims to directly remedy the harm the lawsuit seeks to redress, as well as payments for legal or professional services undertaken in connection with the case being settled, consistent with pre-2017 practice. Id. at 4. (The exception for legal or professional services includes payments to contractors implementing injunctive relief; payments to monitors, arbitrators, mediators, or other neutral third parties; and payments for other categories of legal and professional services.) In developing the new policy, the Department sought to address specific concerns that had been raised over such payments, while preserving the availability of these payments as a potential remedy when appropriate. In 2022, DOJ incorporated the terms of the May 2022 Memorandum in Justice Manual section 1-17.000.

As part of the process of reviewing comments on the IFR and May 2022 Memorandum, the Department has determined that it will add two provisions to the Justice Manual section 1-17.000. 1 In particular, the Department is sensitive to the perception that it will “strong-arm” defendants to agree to third-party payments by declining to agree to a settlement unless the defendant agrees to make one or more third-party payments. It also recognizes the concern that the lack of public input into the development of third-party payments, and the difficulty of obtaining information on settlements that include such provisions, could lead to a lack of accountability and could give rise to claims of “cronyism” or favoritism. As discussed in greater detail below, see infra Part II.B.5.1, these concerns do not suggest that third-party payments writ large are unlawful, or that a rule prohibiting third-party payments is the only way to guard against them. Instead (and as also discussed in greater detail throughout this preamble), the Department has concluded that it can respond to these concerns through the more flexible approach of making changes to the Justice Manual, a course that preserves the benefits of third-party payments while responding in a more surgical manner to the concerns raised.

Specifically, with respect to concerns that the Department will “strong-arm” defendants into agreeing to third-party payments, the forthcoming revisions to the Justice Manual will specify that the Department may decline to agree to settle a civil claim in the absence of a particular remedy where the remedy in question would be available relief were the case litigated to judgment; but that if the third-party payment is not within the scope of the remedies the court could order, the Department will negotiate such a payment as part of a settlement only if the defendant expresses interest in doing so. For example, to resolve an antitrust investigation or filed case, the Antitrust Division may condition a settlement on the entity's agreement to divest itself of certain assets, because that is relief the Antitrust Division could receive if it litigated the case to judgment. See, e.g., United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316, 331 (1961); see generally California v. Am. Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271, 280-81 (1990) (“[I]n Government actions divestiture is the preferred remedy for an illegal merger or acquisition.”). (Because these benefits would go to another unrelated entity, such a condition could potentially have the appearance of a third-party payment.) The Department believes that this division—between relief available if the case were litigated to judgment and relief that would not be—is an appropriate way to guard against concerns that the Department would strong-arm defendants into agreeing to third-party payments. In cases in which a court could order a particular remedy but a defendant is not willing to include it in a settlement, the Department has the option of litigating the case to judgment in order to secure the relief in question without the defendant's consent. In those cases in which a settlement term is not backed by a possible judicial remedy in this way, the Department is sensitive to the concern raised by commenters and views it as preferable (although not legally required) to include this additional safeguard to ensure that the defendant is amenable to the relief in the form of a third-party payment.

As to claims that information about settlements that include third-party payments is not readily available and that such settlements are concluded without adequate participation from the public, the Department will add a provision to the existing Justice Manual requirements that would provide additional opportunities for the public to participate in certain civil settlements. 2

The comment period for the IFR and the May 2022 Memorandum closed on July 11, 2022, and the Department received 16 public comments. 3 The comments express both support for and opposition to the IFR and May 2022 Memorandum. DOJ is exercising its discretion to respond to public comments here.

Comments: According to some commenters, under the 1980 OLC opinion Effect of 31 U.S.C. § 484 on the Settlement Authority of the Attorney General, 4B Op. O.L.C. 684 (1980) (“ Effect of 31 U.S.C. § 484 ”), money available to the United States is constructively received and must be directed to the U.S. Treasury to comply with the MRA. Those commenters argue that any deviation from this result, such as an agency directing settlement money to a non-governmental third party, is a violation of that requirement. In particular, some commenters claim that SEPs are a violation of the MRA because the money used for them is public and the value of the SEP is exchanged, without congressional authorization, for a proportional reduction in the ultimate civil penalty that could have been payable to the U.S. Treasury. And still others contend that private defendants violate 31 U.S.C. 3302(c) by making third-party payments pursuant to settlements.

One commenter states that DOJ fails to explain why it applies the doctrine of constructive receipt from tax law cases (requiring the Government to exercise substantive control over the funds without significant limitation) to this context and argues that the Department has “cherry-picked a version of constructive receipt in an attempt to thwart equity.”

Several commenters claim that SEPs are illegally diverted penalties except for the two instances in which SEPs are expressly authorized by statute: 42 U.S.C. 16138, which grants the Executive Branch permission to seek SEPs related to diesel emissions reductions; and 42 U.S.C. 7604(g)(2), which gives courts discretion to order that penalties received under the citizens suit provision of the Clean Air Act be used to fund beneficial mitigation projects that are consistent with that Act and enhance the public health or the environment, up to $100,000. Commenters assert that Congress's enactment of these provisions indicates that Congress views these types of payments as otherwise impermissible.

One commenter argues that the 2006 Softwood Lumber OLC opinion is not persuasive and, even if it were, the commenter claims that it would not authorize SEPs, which the commenter claims are designed entirely to exchange monetary penalties destined for the Treasury for a particular project. This commenter also suggests that caselaw supporting the legality of these payments cannot be reconciled with subsequent Supreme Court decisions and statutory provisions related to diesel emissions projects and citizens suits under the Clean Air Act, and cites Comptroller General/U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) opinions as supportive. Commenters further invoke a memorandum authored by then-Assistant Attorney General for ENRD Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”) in Civil Settlements with Private Defendants (Mar. 12, 2020) (“Clark Memorandum”), in support of their view that third-party settlements (and SEPs in particular) violate the MRA.

Other commenters cite with approval the OLC view (reflected in the May 2022 Memorandum) that settlement-funded projects do not violate the MRA if they are executed prior to a finding of the defendant's liability and if the United States does not retain control over the projects following settlement except for purposes of oversight of the settlement. Citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 2015 Update (Mar. 10, 2015) (“ 2015 SEP Policy ”), commenters make the point that SEPs are not substitutes for monetary penalties because settlements that include a SEP must always include a settlement penalty that recoups the economic benefit a violator gained from noncompliance with the law, as well as appropriate penalties that reflect the environmental and regulatory harm caused by the violations. These commenters state that SEPs are a factor to consider in making the decision to settle and on what terms to settle. By confusing SEPs with penalties or diversions of Treasury funds, these commenters argue, the previous Administration misconstrued decades of Federal practice.

Response: The Department appreciates commenters' statements that settlement-funded projects do not violate the MRA if they comply with the criteria set forth in Softwood Lumber; and that agreeing to SEPs as part of settlement agreements is consistent with those criteria.

The Department disagrees with commenters' contention that any settlement that includes a payment to a non-government third party violates the MRA and continues to conclude that the MRA permits such settlements in certain circumstances. The MRA requires that “an official or agent of the Government receiving money for the Government from any source shall deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim.” 31 U.S.C. 3302(b). The funds paid under these types of settlements, however, are not “drawn from the Treasury” and have not been “receiv[ed] . . . for the Government” by the United States.

Consistent with authoritative OLC opinions and advice, the Department has long understood that the MRA applies when an official or agent of the Government either actually or “constructively” receives money for the Government. See Effect of 31 U.S.C. § 484, 4B Op. O.L.C. at 688. “The doctrine of constructive receipt will ignore the form of a transaction in order to get to its substance,” and the Department has accordingly concluded that a Federal agency will be considered to be in “constructive receipt” of money “if a federal agency could have accepted possession and retains discretion to direct the use of the money.” Id.

To ensure that a settlement including payment to a third party does not violate the MRA through constructive receipt, OLC has “consistently advised that (1) the settlement be executed before an admission or finding of liability in favor of the United States; and (2) the United States not retain post-settlement control over the disposition or management of the funds or any projects carried out under the settlement, except for ensuring that the parties comply with the settlement.” Softwood Lumber, 30 Op. O.L.C. at 119; see also id. at 119-20 (citing past precedent, including Effect of 31 U.S.C. § 384 ). “If these two criteria are met, then the governmental control over settlement funds is so attenuated that the government cannot be said to be `receiving money for the Government' ” under the MRA. Id.

The May 2022 Memorandum also does not implicate anti-augmentation concerns, which the Comptroller General decisions cited by commenters invoke in addition to the MRA. See also Applicability of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act to an Arbitral Award of Legal Costs, 42 Op. OLC 1, 3 (2018) (“[A]n agency may not augment its appropriations from outside sources without statutory authority”). The May 2022 Memorandum specifies that settlements may not “be used to satisfy the statutory obligation of the Justice Department or any other federal agency to perform a particular activity. Nor shall any such settlement provide the Justice Department or any other federal agency with additional resources to perform a particular activity for which the Justice Department or any other federal agency, respectively, receives a specific appropriation.” May 2022 Memorandum at 3.

Thus, as stated in the May 2022 Memorandum, “[i]t has been the consistent view of the Office of Legal Counsel, including in 2020 when the Justice Department's current regulation [now-revoked 28 CFR 50.28] was promulgated, that settlements involving payments to non-governmental third parties, if properly structured, do not violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.” Id. at 1. In support of this statement, the May 2022 Memorandum cites the OLC memorandum approving the now-revoked December 2020 Rule for form and legality, which recognized the longstanding position of the Department that properly structured settlement agreements do not violate the MRA. December 2020 OLC Memo at 2. This memorandum stated that the rule was “consistent with the policy underlying the MRA—that Congress, and not the agency, should determine when government resources may be spent on behalf of third parties.” Id. But it elaborated that the rule “does not reflect an interpretation of the statute itself and thus prohibits certain payments to third parties that this Office has concluded that the MRA otherwise allows,” id., as detailed in the cited Softwood Lumber OLC opinion. And the May 2022 Memorandum explicitly incorporates the two criteria that Softwood Lumber identifies—the “settlement must be executed before an admission or finding of liability in favor of the United States, and the Justice Department and its client agencies must not retain post-settlement control over the disposition or management of the funds or any projects carried out under any such settlement, except for ensuring that the parties comply with the settlement.” May 2022 Memorandum at 3.

To the extent that commenters disagree with the Softwood Lumber opinion or believe it inapplicable, they do not offer authoritative judicial precedents or similar authoritative sources meaningfully undercutting its reasoning or its support for the current Department policy as set forth in the May 2022 Memorandum. Softwood Lumber remains applicable to this context, for several reasons.

First, Comptroller General opinions cited by commenters were addressed in the Softwood Lumber opinion itself, which noted that concerns in those matters were “inapposite” because the MRA is inapplicable where there has been no constructive receipt of money for the Government. 30 Op. O.L.C. at 121. (The same rationale applies to other GAO documents one commenter cites.)  4 The Department did not depart from that principle in the December 2020 Rule. Moreover, the Department has incorporated in some of the restrictions in the May 2022 Memorandum measures that address some of the other concerns raised in those Comptroller General opinions. The May 2022 Memorandum also explicitly incorporates the two criteria set forth in the Softwood Lumber OLC opinion—the “settlement must be executed before an admission or finding of liability in favor of the United States, and the Justice Department and its client agencies must not retain post-settlement control over the disposition or management of the funds or any projects carried out under any such settlement, except for ensuring that the parties comply with the settlement.” May 2022 Memorandum at 3. Moreover, in all events, decisions of GAO and the Comptroller General “are not binding on Executive Branch agencies”; instead, “the opinions of the Attorney General and th[e] Office [of Legal Counsel] are controlling.” Prioritizing Programs to Exempt Small Businesses From Competition in Federal Contracts, 33 Op. O.L.C. 284, 302 (2009).

Second, the Softwood Lumber opinion does not, contrary to commenters' views, limit its understanding of the criteria for consistency with the MRA to its own facts or to the specific examples it cites. It instead articulates the two criteria for compliance broadly and refers to them as “general principles” applicable regardless of whether the United States is a plaintiff or defendant. 30 Op. O.L.C. at 120. See also December 2020 OLC Memo at 2 (citing Softwood Lumber for the principle that the MRA generally permits “certain payments to third parties”).

Third, it is irrelevant that one commenter deems unpersuasive two circuit-level decisions sometimes invoked to support the legality of settlement payments— Public Interest Research Group v. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc., 913 F.2d 64, 81 (3d Cir. 1990), and Sierra Club v. Electronic Controls Design, 909 F.2d 1350, 1354 (1990). Softwood Lumber does not rely on these decisions. The commenter, moreover, criticizes these decisions in part on the ground that “Congress has subsequently indicated that SEPs (and thus all Third-Party Payments) violate the MRA” and the Anti-Deficiency Act (“ADA”) “absent explicit congressional authorization,” referring to Congress's express authorization of SEPs in 42 U.S.C. 16138. The Department disagrees with the commenter's reading of that provision, for reasons given below. Finally, the commenter claims that Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. Ct. 1635 (2017), clarified that what constitutes a “penalty” is a functional inquiry. Kokesh, however, held that monetary disgorgement ordered by the SEC constitutes a penalty within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2462. Id. at 1641-45. Kokesh did not involve a settlement, and it is not relevant to when money paid under a settlement is received by the Federal Government under the MRA.

Fourth, when commenters contend that private defendants violate 31 U.S.C. 3302(c) by making third-party payments pursuant to settlements, they assume that funds in the hands of private defendants are “public money” subject to the MRA. Under Softwood Lumber, however, such funds are not public monies. And the commenters' argument improperly conflates funds in the hands of private litigants, before any determination of liability, with penalties imposed after trial that may in some circumstances constitute public money. See Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp., 913 F.2d at 81 n.32 (noting that section 3302(c)(1) applies to penalties imposed after a trial, but recognizing that outside of penalties, “a [private] party may compromise its claim however it sees fit”); United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 373, 374 (E.D. Va. 1997) (finding with respect to a Clean Water Act penalty imposed after a trial that “a penalty, which is imposed pursuant to a federal statute, in a suit brought by the federal government, . . . constitutes `public money.' As such, it must be deposited with the Treasury, in accordance with the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, unless otherwise specified by Congress”).

Fifth, the Attorney General has not “cherry-picked” a favorable definition of “constructive receipt” to avoid violation of the MRA. To the contrary, the 1980 OLC opinion cited by the commenter applied the doctrine of “constructive receipt” as a “practical” constraint to guard against elevating form over substance in evaluating whether a settlement violated the MRA. Effect of 31 U.S.C. 484, 4B Op. O.L.C. at 688. In addition, as the comment itself acknowledges, there is no definitive version of the constructive receipt doctrine that is clearly applicable to the types of settlements at issue here and that differs from the Department's approach. Moreover, as Effect of 31 U.S.C. 484 notes, the Department and Federal agencies had previously applied the same definition in other contexts, including to conclude that an individual in some circumstances does not “accept” funds when the individual does not retain control over the disposition of those funds. Id. at 688 n.11. That further undercuts the argument that the Department has chosen a particular version of the doctrine in order to permit circumvention of the MRA.

The Department also disagrees with the assertion that 42 U.S.C. 16138 (enacted in 2008) undercuts the legality of payments to third parties. That provision addresses EPA's authority to accept diesel emissions reduction SEPs. The commenter broadly states that the “clear implication” of this provision is that diesel emission SEPs (and accordingly all third-party payments) violate the MRA and the ADA absent express congressional authorization. But this claim ignores the text, context, and history of section 16138, which make clear that Congress enacted the 2008 provision to address a narrow concern that EPA then believed had newly arisen from Congress's express appropriations for diesel retrofit projects.

As an initial matter, nothing in the text of section 16138 indicates that it broadly prohibits the Federal Government from entering into settlement agreements that include payments to third parties. On the contrary, by its terms, it provides that the EPA “may accept . . . diesel emissions reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects” that meet certain criteria “as part of a settlement of any alleged violates of environmental law.” 42 U.S.C. 16138. To the extent that the commenter relies on the interpretive cannon expressio unius est exclusio alterius —that expressing one item of an associated group or series excludes another—that canon applies “only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded.” NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Here, it is not “sensible” to “infer[ ],” id., that Congress intended to disrupt the Federal Government's long-standing practice of entering into settlement agreements that include third-party payments from a provision that authorizes the Federal Government to agree to one such type of agreement— i.e., those that include “diesel emissions reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects,” 42 U.S.C. 16138.

The history and context of section 16138 confirm this conclusion. As the Senate report accompanying the legislation states, SEPs had historically “been an important funding stream for diesel retrofit projects.” S. Rep. No. 110-266, at 2 (2008). The report notes that SEPs are “projects [that] are undertaken by a defendant as part of a settlement in an environmental enforcement action . . . . They specifically do not include actions which a defendant is otherwise legally required to perform. So they generate environmental and public health benefits that would not have occurred without the settlement.” Id. However, after Congress first funded the diesel retrofit program in 2005, the report continues, “EPA apparently . . . concluded that the Agency generally should cease funding diesel retrofit projects via SEPs. EPA believes that allowing diesel retrofits to be funded by SEPs once Congress has specifically appropriated monies for that purpose could violate the Miscellaneous Receipts Act.” Id. The Senate report explains that the new provision was “intended to clarify that Congress did not intend the funding of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act to affect EPA's ability to enter into SEPs that fund diesel retrofit projects.” Id. Rather, “Congress never intended the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act to limit EPA's ability to negotiate additional diesel retrofit projects as part of enforcement settlements.” Id. at 3.

This history makes clear that Congress enacted the 2008 provision to address the narrow concern that, at the time, EPA believed had arisen from Congress's express appropriations in 2005 for diesel retrofit projects. Congress clarified that it had “never intended” to limit EPA's ability to negotiate SEPs when it funded the diesel retrofit program. Id. Neither the text nor the history or context of how section 16138 came about suggest that Congress understood SEPs to violate the MRA as a general matter. To the contrary, Congress was aware of EPA's and the Department's practice of using SEPs in environmental enforcement settlements and enacted this provision to support that practice and ensure that diesel retrofit projects would continue to be included. See S. Rep. No. 110-266, at 2. 5

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple special local regulations for annual events in the Captain of the Port Los Angeles Long Beach Zone listed in 33 CFR 100.1104 Table 1 to § 100.1104 for events occurring in the month of December as listed.

1. Entry (5) Morro Bay Holiday Boat Parade (also known as (a.k.a.) Morro Bay Lighted Boat Parade). From 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. on December 7, 2024.

2. Entry (6) Santa Barbara Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. Santa Barbara Annual Boat Parade of Lights). From 5:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on December 8, 2024.

3. Entry (7) Ventura Harbor Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. Ventura Harbor Parade of Lights). From 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. daily on December 13, 2024 and on December 14, 2024.

4. Entry (8) Channel Islands Harbor Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. Channel Islands Harbor Parade of Lights). From 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on December 14, 2024.

5. Entry (9) Marina del Rey Holiday Boat Parade. From 5:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on December 14, 2024.

6. Entry (10) King Harbor Holiday Boat Parade. From 4:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on December 14, 2024.

7. Entry (11) Port of Los Angeles Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. LA Harbor Holiday Afloat Parade). From 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on December 7, 2024.

8. Entry (12) Parade of 1,000 Lights (a.k.a. Shoreline Yacht Club Annual Christmas Boat Parade). From 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on December 14, 2024.

9. Entry (13) Naples Island Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. Naples Boat Parade). From 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on December 21, 2024.

10. Entry (14) Huntington Harbor Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. 62nd Annual Huntington Harbour Boat Parade). From 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. daily on December 14, 2024, and on December 15, 2024.

11. Entry (15) Newport Beach Holiday Boat Parade (a.k.a. 126th Annual Christmas Boat Parade). From 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. daily on December 18, 2024, and on December 22, 2024.

12. Entry (16) Dana Point Holiday in the Harbor (a.k.a. 49th Annual Dana Point Harbor Boat Parade of Lights). From 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. daily on December 13, 2024, December 14, 2024, and December 15, 2024.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 100.1104, all persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or as official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The “official patrol” consists of any Coast Guard; other Federal, state, or local law enforcement; and any public or sponsor-provided vessels assigned or approved by the cognizant Coast Guard Sector Commander to patrol each event. No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, nor impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas during all applicable effective dates and times unless cleared to do so by or through an official patrol vessel. When hailed and/or signaled by an official patrol vessel, any spectator located within a regulated area during all applicable effective dates and times shall come to an immediate stop. The Patrol Commander (PATCOM) is empowered to control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area or to restrict vessels from entering the regulated area. The Patrol Commander shall be designated by the cognizant Coast Guard Sector Commander; will be a U.S. Coast Guard commissioned officer, warrant officer, or petty officer to act as the Sector Commander's official representative; and will be located aboard the lead official patrol vessel. As the Sector Commander's representative, the PATCOM may terminate the event any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property. PATCOM may be reached on VHF-FM Channel 13 (156.65MHz) or 16 (156.8MHz) when required, by the call sign “PATCOM.” The Patrol Commander may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local agencies.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1104 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via a Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If the Captain of the Port Los Angeles Long Beach determines that the Special Local Regulations need not to be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, the Captain of the Port may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to reflect the change.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.1125 for the Los Angeles County Holiday Fireworks regulated area in Item Number 14 of Table 1 to § 165.1125 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on December 14, 2024 and for the New Years Eve Fireworks regulated area in Item Number 15 of Table 1 to § 165.1125 from 8:00 p.m. on December 31, 2024, to 1:00 a.m. on January 1, 2025. This action will be taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. Our regulation for fireworks events within the Los Angeles Long Beach Captain of the Port Zone, Table 1 to § 165.1125, Item Numbers 14 and 15, specifies the location of the regulated areas for the Los Angeles County Holiday Fireworks and the New Years Eve Fireworks, which encompasses portions of Marina del Rey. During the enforcement periods, § 165.1125 requires operators of a vessel in the regulated area to comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or Official Patrol, defined as any Coast Guard or other Federal, state, or local law enforcement assisting the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via a Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM).

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive sufficient notice of this fireworks event in time to publish an NPRM. We must establish this safety zone by December 31, 2024 to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. Accordingly, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because prompt action is needed to ensure potential safety hazards associated with fireworks do not impact the safety of the public and the marine environment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks event on December 31, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within Queensway Bay. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 11 p.m. on December 31, 2024, through 12:30 a.m. on January 1, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 feet of the fireworks launch site. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a small, designated area during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive sufficient notice of this fireworks event in time to publish an NPRM. We must establish this safety zone by December 8, 2024 to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a fireworks display. Accordingly, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because prompt action is needed to ensure potential safety hazards associated with fireworks do not impact the safety of the public and the marine environment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks event on December 8, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within Santa Barbara Harbor. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 6 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on December 8, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within Santa Barbara Harbor. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a small, designated area during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 19, 2024 (89 FR 67014), the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the Arizona SIP.

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they comply with the relevant CAA requirements. We also proposed to approve the MCAQD's RACT demonstration associated with these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, we proposed that the revised rules corrected the deficiencies identified in our previous conditional approval (85 FR 10986, February 26, 2020). Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving MCAQD Rule 350 and Rule 351 into the Arizona SIP. The November 18, 2020 version of Rule 350 and Rule 351 will replace the conditionally approved version of these rules in the SIP. This action signifies that the State of Arizona has fulfilled its commitment under the terms of the February 26, 2020 conditional approval (85 FR 10986) to submit revised versions of these rules, and the EPA is now removing the conditional approval text associated with these rules and CTG categories from 40 CFR 52.119(c)(1). The EPA is also approving MCAQD's RACT demonstration associated with these rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area.

In this rule, 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 MCAQD Rule 350, “Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) Facility,” revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions from organic liquid storage and transfer operations at organic liquid distribution facilities. The EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by reference of MCAQD Rule 351, “Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk Gasoline Plants and at Bulk Gasoline Terminals,” revised on November 18, 2020, which regulates VOC emissions from gasoline storage and loading activities at bulk gasoline plants and terminals. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements Executive Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, “the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, 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. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Orders 12898 and 14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 7, 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 EPA amends part 52, chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

The EPA is required to determine whether areas designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, and to take certain steps for areas that failed to attain (see CAA section 181(b)(2)). The EPA's determination of attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based on a nonattainment area's design value (DV) as of the attainment date. 1

The 2015 ozone NAAQS is met at an EPA regulatory monitoring site when the DV does not exceed 0.070 parts per million (ppm). For Moderate nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, such as the area addressed in this action, the attainment date was August 3, 2024. Because the DV is based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year before the attainment date ( i.e., December 31, 2023, in the case of Moderate nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS). Accordingly, the EPA's determinations for each Moderate area are based upon the complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone monitoring data from calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023.

This action addresses the Northern Wasatch Front area in Utah, which was classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as of the Moderate area attainment date of August 3, 2024. The EPA is finding that the Northern Wasatch Front Moderate area did not attain by the attainment date, because the area's 2021-2023 DV was 0.077 ppm which is greater than 0.070 ppm. Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the effect of this determination is that this area will be reclassified by operation of law as Serious on the effective date of this final rule. The reclassified area will then be subject to the Serious area requirement to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than August 3, 2027.

As a result of the area's reclassification as Serious, Utah must submit to the EPA the state implementation plan (SIP) revisions for this area that satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to Serious areas established in CAA section 182(c) and in the 2015 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule (see 83 FR 62998, December 6, 2018). The EPA is establishing deadlines for submitting SIP revisions for these reclassified areas in a separate action.

On October 26, 2015, the EPA issued its final action to revise the NAAQS for ozone to establish a new 8-hour standard ( see 80 FR 65452, October 26, 2015). In that action, the EPA promulgated identical tighter primary and secondary ozone standards designed to protect public health and welfare that specified an 8-hour ozone level of 0.070 ppm. Specifically, the standards require that the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration may not exceed 0.070 ppm.

Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 52 areas throughout the country as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). In a separate action, the EPA assigned classification thresholds and attainment dates based on the severity of an area's ozone problem, determined by the area's DV (see 83 FR 10376, May 8, 2018). Consistent with CAA section 181(a), the EPA established the attainment date for Marginal, Moderate, and Serious nonattainment areas as 3 years, 6 years, and 9 years, respectively, from the effective date of the final designations. Thus, the attainment date for Marginal nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS was August 3, 2021, the attainment date for Moderate areas was August 3, 2024, and the attainment date for Serious areas is August 3, 2027. On October 7, 2022 (87 FR 60897), the EPA determined that 22 areas, including the Northern Wasatch Front area addressed in this action, did not attain the standards by the Marginal attainment date, and these areas were reclassified as Moderate by operation of law.

The statutory authority for this determination is provided by the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). Relevant portions of the CAA include sections 107, 181 and 182.

CAA section 107(d) provides that when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether each area is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and emissions control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA section 181(a)(1) requires each area designated as nonattainment for a revised ozone NAAQS to be classified at the same time as the area is designated based on the extent of the ozone problem in the area (as determined based on the area's DV). Classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are “Marginal,” “Moderate,” “Serious,” “Severe,” and “Extreme,” in order of stringency. CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment planning and additional requirements that apply to each ozone nonattainment area based on its classification.

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA must determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based on the area's DV as of that date. Under CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.1307, on application by any state, the EPA may grant a 1-year extension to the attainment date when certain criteria are met. One criterion for a first attainment date extension is that an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value for the attainment year must not exceed the level of the standard.

If an area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and is not granted a 1-year attainment date extension, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the EPA to make the determination that an ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, and requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to the area's DV as of the determination of failure to attain. 2 Section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to publish the determination of failure to attain and accompanying reclassification in the Federal Register no later than 6 months after the attainment date, which in the case of the Moderate nonattainment area considered in this determination is February 3, 2025.

Once an area is reclassified, each state that contains a reclassified area is required to submit certain SIP revisions in accordance with the more stringent classification. The SIP revisions are intended to, among other things, demonstrate how the area will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than August 3, 2027, the Serious area attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Per CAA section 182(i), a state with a reclassified ozone nonattainment area must submit the applicable attainment plan requirements “according to the schedules prescribed in connection with such requirements” in CAA section 182(c) for Serious areas, but the EPA “may adjust applicable deadlines (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.” EPA is addressing the SIP revision and implementation deadlines for newly reclassified Serious areas, as well as the continued applicability of Moderate area requirements that this area may not yet have met, in a separate rulemaking.

The level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 0.070 ppm. 3 Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, the 2015 ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration ( i.e., the DV) does not exceed 0.070 ppm. When the DV does not exceed 0.070 ppm at each ambient air quality monitoring site within the area, the area is deemed to be attaining the ozone NAAQS. Each area's DV is determined by the highest DV among monitors with valid DVs. 4 The data handling convention in 40 CFR part 50 appendix U states that concentrations are to be reported in ppm to the third decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated. Thus, a 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.071 ppm is greater than 0.070 ppm and would exceed the standard, but a 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.0709 ppm is truncated to 0.070 ppm and attains the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The EPA's determination of whether the Northern Wasatch Front attained the standard is based on hourly ozone concentration data for calendar years 2021, 2022 and 2023 that have been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and reported to the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. 5

State and local monitoring network plans are subject to approval by the EPA on an annual basis, and any interim modifications to those plans must also be approved by the EPA. 6 The annual monitoring network plan process is provided in 40 CFR 58.10 and the requirements governing system modifications and monitor discontinuations are laid out in 40 CFR 58.14. Where state or local agencies seek to modify the ambient air quality monitoring networks by discontinuing a monitor station, the EPA may approve such modifications subject to the criteria established in 40 CFR 58.14(c). The EPA may not approve such discontinuation if doing so would compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS. If a monitor has been discontinued subject to 40 CFR 58.14 such that the discontinuation results in insufficient data to calculate a valid DV according to appendix U to 40 CFR part 50, EPA will determine the applicable area's attainment status based on the remaining monitors in the area.

The EPA is determining that the Northern Wasatch Front Moderate nonattainment area failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of August 3, 2024. As shown in table 1, at least one monitor in this area had a 2021-2023 DV greater than 0.070 ppm; in fact, all of the area's monitors had a 2021-2023 DV greater than 0.070 ppm. The EPA has further determined that this area did not meet the requirements under section 181(a)(5)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1307 necessary to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date, because at least one monitor had a 2023 fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average that was greater than 0.070 ppm. Table 1 shows the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration and 2021-2023 DV for each monitor in the Northern Wasatch Front area.

I. Approval of Revisions to Nebraska's Underground Storage Tank Program A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

States that have received final approval from the EPA under section 9004(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b), must maintain an underground storage tank program that is no less stringent than the Federal UST program. Either EPA or the approved State initiate program revision. When EPA makes revisions to the regulations that govern the UST program, States must revise their programs to comply with the updated regulations and submit these revisions to the EPA for approval. Program revision may be necessary when the controlling Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when responsibility for the State program is shifted to a new agency or agencies.

On September 8, 2023, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Nebraska submitted a complete program revision application seeking the EPA approval for its UST program revisions (State Application). Nebraska's revisions correspond to the EPA final rule published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41566), which revised the 1988 UST regulations and the 1988 State program approval (SPA) regulations (2015 Federal Revisions). As required by 40 CFR 281.20, the State Application contains the following: a transmittal letter requesting approval, a description of the program and operating procedures, a demonstration of the State's procedures ensure adequate enforcement, a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of the EPA and the implementing agency, a statement of certification from the Attorney General, and copies of all relevant State statutes and regulations. We have reviewed the State Application and determined that the revisions to Nebraska's UST program are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements in subpart C of 40 CFR part 281, and that the Nebraska program provides for adequate enforcement of compliance (40 CFR 281.11(b)). Therefore, the EPA grants Nebraska final approval to operate its UST program with the changes described in the program revision application and as outlined below in section I.G. of this document.

This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations being approved by this rule are already effective in Nebraska and they are not changed by this action. This action merely approves the existing State regulations as meeting the Federal requirements and renders them federally enforceable.

EPA is publishing this direct final rule concurrent with a proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now.

Along with this direct final rule, the EPA is publishing a separate document in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register that serves as the proposal to approve the State's UST program revisions, providing opportunity for public comment. If EPA receives comments that oppose this approval, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the approval of the State program changes after considering all comments received during the comment period. EPA will then address all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this approval, you must do so at this time.

On August 19, 2002, the EPA finalized a rule approving the Nebraska UST program, effective September 18, 2002, to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The State's program has not previously been codified.

On September 8, 2023, in accordance with 40 CFR 281.51(a), Nebraska submitted a complete application for final approval of its UST program revisions adopted on July 15, 2015. The EPA now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Nebraska's UST program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final approval. Therefore, EPA grants Nebraska final approval for the following program changes:

The State also demonstrates that its program provides adequate enforcement of compliance as described in 40 CFR 281.11(b) and part 281, subpart D. The Nebraska State Fire Marshal (NSFM) has broad statutory authority with respect to USTs to regulate installation, operation, maintenance, closure, and UST releases, and to the issuance of orders. These statutory authorities are found in Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapters sections 81-15, 117 to 81-15, 127, sections 81-501 to 81-512, and section 66-1501 to 66-1531, and Nebraska Administrative Code, Title 159. The Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE) has broad statutory authority for corrective action and the administration of the State remedial action fund. These statutory authorities are found in: sections 81-1501 to 81-1532, N.R.S., and Titles 115, 118, 126, 178, and 200, NAC. These authorities address rules of practice and procedure, ground water quality standards and cleanup requirements, release reporting and follow-up, and the Petroleum Release Remedial Action Reimbursement Fund.

Where an approved State program has a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law, the additional coverage is not part of the federally-approved program and is not federally enforceable (40 CFR 281.12(a)(3)(ii)). The following Nebraska requirements are considered “broader in scope” than the Federal program:

The NSFM has responsibilities with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. NRS section 81-502.

The NSFM has responsibilities for rules and regulations; enforcement; and State procedure with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. NRS section 81-502.04.

The NSFM has duties with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. NRS section 81-503.01(a)-(g), (i).

The NSFM has its own authority to enter and conduct inspections when authorized. NRS section 81-512.

The Nebraska Protection Act defines terms not subject to the UST program. NRS sections 81-1502(1)-(5), (8)-(9), (12)-(13), (15)-(19), (23), (28)-(29), and (31)-(38).

The NDEE has duties with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. NRS section 81-1504(1)-(30), (33)-(58).

The Nebraska Environmental Quality Council has responsibilities to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations; standards of air, land and water with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. NRS section 81-1505.

The Director of the NDEE is authorized to bring State enforcement for violations of State law under a state authority for hearings and issuing orders, requiring monitoring, investigations and corrective action. NRS section 81-1507.

The NDEE is authorized to pursue State civil penalties and injunctive relief. NRS sections 81-1508, 81-1508.01, and 81-1508.02.

The NDEE is authorized to perform inspections and execute search warrants under State authority. NRS section 81-1511.

Portions of the Nebraska UST provisions are applicable to heating oil tanks of greater than 1,100 gallon capacity. NRS section 81-15, 119(10)(b).

Nebraska requires that owners of farm, residential, and heating oil tank systems of less than 1,100 gallon capacity to register such tank systems and pay a one-time registration fee. NRS sections 81-15,119(10)(a) and 81-15-120.

Nebraska establishes permitting requirements on owners and operators of UST systems ( e.g., registration, operating, installation, closure). NRS section 81-15, 121.

Nebraska establishes procedures for the denial or revocation of State issued permits. NRS section 81-15-122.

Nebraska establishes procedures for a permit and registration system for all tanks; an inspection fee; inventory-control procedures; procedures for notification of temporarily or permanently abandoned tanks; and procedures for licensing tank installation and removal contractors. NRS sections 81-15-123(2)-(3), (4)(b), (5), (10), and (12) as it refers to certification and subcontractors.

Nebraska sets deadlines for NDEE approval or disapproval of remedial action plans; establishes procedures for the reimbursement of expenses paid by the owner or operator; establishes procedures for the NDEE to prepare a remedial action plan and implement the plan in the event of an unknown or unavailable owner or operator of a facility causing a release; provides that the Environmental Quality Council establish standards; provides access under State law; provides for NDEE briefing and certificates of completion for work completed under a remedial action plan. NRS sections 81-15, 124(2) second and third sentence, 81-15, 124(3) second sentence and full second paragraph, 81-15, 124.01-81-15, 124.02, 81-15, 124.04-81-15, 124.07.

Nebraska establishes a process for penalties and actions to enjoin for violations of the Petroleum Products and Hazardous Substances Storage and Handling act under State law. NSR section 81-15, 125-81-15, 126.

Nebraska requires notice of registration and duty to provide the notice. NSR section 81-15, 127.

The Nebraska remedial fund is structured to reimburse owners and operators of both USTs and aboveground storage tanks for allowable costs of remedial action and third party claims. NRS section 66-1501, et seq.

Nebraska provides intervention in a matter in litigation under State law. NSR section 25-328.

Nebraska requires contractor licensure and certification for tank installation and removal contractors. Title 159 NAC Chapter 3.001-3.004.

Nebraska requires all owners and operators to comply with Nebraska financial responsibilities requirements for all categories of UST system owner or operators as of the effective date of the regulations with no extensions or deferrals or comply with the federal financial responsibility requirements. Title 159 NAC Chapter 9.001 and Title 200 NAC Chapter 1 [entire regulation].

Nebraska mandates that fuel distributors, or any person who deposits regulated substances in an UST system, are required to notify owners and operators of the registration requirements. Title 159 NAC Chapter 11.004.

Nebraska establishes approval standards for UST training courses and trainers. Title 159 NAC Chapter 13.003.01-13.003.03.

Nebraska establishes minimum requirements for public hearings for permit decisions which by statue or other agency regulations provide for public notice, public review and comment, and an opportunity to request a public hearing before making a final permit decision. Title 115 NAC Chapter 3.001.01, 3.002-3.013, and 3.015.

Nebraska establishes antidegradation; beneficial uses; narrative and numerical standards and sample collections. Title 118 NAC Chapter 3.

Nebraska has procedures to establish narrative and numerical standards for groundwater classification. Title 118 NAC Chapter 4.

Nebraska establishes procedures for changing a groundwater classification. Title 118 NAC Chapter 5.

Nebraska establishes remedial action provisions for point source pollution events for non-petroleum releases. Title 118 NAC Chapter 6.001 and appendix A.

Nebraska establishes definitions for the management of waste with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. Title 126, NAC Chapter 1.002-1.004, 1.006-1.010, 1.012, 1.014-1.019, 1.023, 1.025-1.029, 1.030.02, 1.032, 1.035, 1.039, 1.041-1.044, 1.046-1.047.

Nebraska establishes provisions for waste management permits and licenses; land application of paunch; and fertilizer and pesticide wastewater with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. Nebraska also reserves chapters for future use. Title 126 NAC Chapters 2-17, 19 and appendix I.

Nebraska establishes provisions for rules and regulations related to: recreation camps; design construction; operation and maintenance of public swimming pools; rules, regulations and standards governing mobile home parks; clean indoor air; fees for inspection of private water supply or private sewage disposal facilities; rules and regulations governing a private well; licensure under the water well standards and contractors' practice act; fees under the water well standards and contractors' practice act; water well standards and contractors' licensing board; asbestos projects; lead based paint activities; and methamphetamine cleanups with a greater scope of coverage than required by Federal law. Nebraska also reserves chapters for future use. Title 178 NAC Chapters 1-11, 13-24.

The following definitions associated with well installation are not applicable to the UST program: Abandoned Water Well, Driven Sandpoint Well, Ground Water Heat Pump Well, Illegal Water Well, Inactive Status Water Well, Injection Well, Open Hole Well, Service connection, Special Irrigation District. Title 178 NAC Chapter 12-002.

Nebraska establishes procedures for the installation of potable well construction; non-potable well construction; public water supply systems; ground water heat pump wells; installation of pumps and pumping equipment as it relates to disinfection associated with potable wells; and procedures for driven sandpoint wells and closed loop heat pump wells. Nebraska further offers a Waiver of Disinfection. Title NAC 178 Chapter 12-04-12-05, 12-08, 12-10, 12-011.01B2, 12-012.08C, 12-012.08G, and Waiver of Disinfection.

Nebraska requires owners and operators of UST systems that permanently closed between December 22, 1988, and January 1, 1989, to close such UST systems when directed to do so by the NSFM. NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (21.7.4.3.1-21.7.4.3.3) 2012 Version.

Nebraska requires UST system owners and operators to have a tightness test performed on tanks and piping prior to placing the tank system back into service after receiving an extension to the 12-month temporary closure period. National Fire Protection Association 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (21.7.4.3.1-21.7.4.3.3) 2012 Version.

Nebraska limits the means by which owners and operators can demonstrate compliance with installation of a new UST system. Only an installer that has been certified or licensed by the State can provide certification of compliance on the UST notification form. Title 159 NAC Chapter 3 as it incorporates 40 CFR 280.20(e)(2).

Nebraska requires additional design and installation standards for new UST systems. Title 159 NAC Chapter 4.001.01-4.001.07.

The Federal program requires all cathodic protection systems to be tested within 6 months of installation. Nebraska general operating requirements for existing UST systems require annual testing for impressed current cathodic protection systems after the initial testing. Title 159 NAC Chapter 6.002.01A1.

Nebraska general operating requirements for existing UST systems requires repaired tanks, piping, overfill, and spill prevention equipment be tested prior to placing the system back into service, or 30 days following the date of completion of the repair, whichever occurs first. Title 159 NAC Chapter 6.004.01.

Nebraska general operating requirements for existing UST systems requires additional record-keeping and reporting. Title 159 NAC Chapter 6.005-6.006.

Nebraska general operating requirements for existing UST systems requires that if a ball float is to be abandoned in place, a drop tube shut off or audible alarm will be set at 85 percent tank capacity to prevent overfill. Title 159 NAC Chapter 6.006.01.

Nebraska excludes all UST systems larger than 1,100 gallons used to store heating oil from all release detection requirements except that they must instead perform the manual tank gauging procedures in 40 CFR 280.43(b) on a monthly basis from April 1 to November 1. Title 159 NAC Chapter 7.001.01.

Nebraska release detection requirements require owners and operators to conduct and record the daily product inventory control requirements as described in 40 CFR 280.43(a)(1)-(6) for all new and existing UST systems. However, UST systems eligible for and utilizing manual tank gauging in accordance with 40 CFR 280.43(b), do not need to meet the daily inventory requirement. Title 159 NAC Chapter 7.004.

Nebraska release and suspected release reporting requires notification to NSFM and NDEE within 24 hours by the owner and operator of the tank. Title 159 NAC Chapter 8.005.

Nebraska site assessment at closure or change-in-service requires sampling analysis, in- place closure assessment, removal closure assessment, tank excavation requirements, line excavation assessment, and reporting requirements. Title 159 NAC Chapter 10.003-10.004.

Nebraska operator training requirements for Class A, Class B, and Class C operators establish owner and operator responsibilities, operator training requirements, operator examination requirements, reciprocity, timing of operator training, operator retraining and owner and operator documentation. Title 159 NAC Chapter 13.001-13.002, 13.003.04-13.003.05, 13.004-13.008.

Nebraska establishes ground water quality standards and use classifications for ground water regulatory programs. Title 118 NAC Chapter 1-2, 6.002, 7, appendix B.

Nebraska establishes water well construction, pump installation and water well decommissioning standards for dewatering wells, ground water monitoring and recovery wells, and test holes. Nebraska further provides for declaratory orders about substantially equivalent procedures or materials and variances. Title 178 NAC Chapter 12.001, 12-03, 12-06-12-07, 12-09, 12-011.01-12-011.01B1, 12-011.01C-12-012.08B, 12-012.08D-12-012.08F2, 12-012.09-12-14, the tables and figures, and the following definitions found at Title 178, Chapter 12-002 Annular Fill, Annular Space, Aquifer, Aquifer Seal, Primary Aquifer Seal, Surface Seal, Backflow Preventer, Bentonite, Bentonite Seal, Bored or Dug Well, Casing, Cesspool, Clay, Community Water System, Confining Layer, Construction of Water Wells, Contamination, Decommissioned when used in relation to a water well, Department, Dewatering Well, Discharge Pipe, Distribution Piping, Good Cause, Gravel Pack, Ground Water, Grout, Installation of Pumps and Pumping Equipment, Monitoring Well, Non-potable Well, Observation Well, Person, Pitless Unit, Pollution, Potable Well, Primary Aquifer Seal, Public Water System, (Licensed) Pump Installation Contractor, (Licensed) Pump Installation Supervisor, Pumps and Pumping Equipment, Recovery Well, Sanitary Well Seal, Screen Apertures, Screened Vent, Secure Cover or Cap, Seepage Pit, Septic Tank, Soil Absorption System (Septic Lateral Field), Static Water Level, Substantially Equivalent, Subsurface Disposal System, Supervision or its derivatives, Surface Seal, Test Hole, Tremie Pipe, Watertight Casing, Watertight Secure Cover, Water Well, (Licensed) Water Well Contractor, (Licensed) Water Well Drilling Supervisor, Well Development, Well Pit, Well Screen.

Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State approved UST program into the CFR. Section 9004(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the EPA to approve State UST programs to operate in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs 40 CFR part 282 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA and any other applicable state provisions. The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the approved State program and State requirements that can be federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the approved program in each State.

The EPA has not previously incorporated by reference and codified Nebraska's approved UST program. Through this action, the EPA is incorporating by reference and codifying Nebraska's State program in 40 CFR 282.77 to include the program and the approved revisions.

Incorporation by reference: In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the federally approved Nebraska UST program described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 282 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document generally available through https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA Region 7 contact listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify Nebraska's approved UST program. The codification reflects the State program that would be in effect at the time EPA's approved revisions to the Nebraska UST program addressed in this direct final rule become final. The document incorporates by reference Nebraska's UST statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the approved and federally enforceable program. By codifying the approved Nebraska program and by amending the CFR, the public will more easily be able to discern the status of the federally-approved requirements of the Nebraska program.

EPA is incorporating by reference the Nebraska approved UST program in 40 CFR 282.77. Section 282.77(d)(1)(i) incorporates by reference for enforcement purposes the State's statutes and regulations.

Section 282.77 also references the Attorney General's Statement, Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures, the Program Description, and the Memorandum of Agreement, which are approved as part of the UST program under Subtitle I of RCRA. These documents are not incorporated by reference.

The EPA retains the authority under sections 9005 and 9006 of Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in approved States. With respect to these actions, EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the State authorized analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Nebraska procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 282.77(d)(1)(ii) of 40 CFR lists those approved Nebraska authorities that would fall into this category.

The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's UST program are not part of the federally approved State program. Such provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I program because they are “broader in scope” than Subtitle I of RCRA. Section 281.12(a)(3)(ii) of 40 CFR states that where an approved State program has provisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program, those provisions are not a part of the federally approved program. As a result, State provisions which are broader in scope than the Federal program are not incorporated by reference for purposes of federal enforcement in part 282. Section 282.77(d)(1)(iii) lists for reference and clarity the Nebraska statutory and regulatory provisions which are broader in scope than the Federal program and which are not, therefore, part of the approved program being codified in this document. Provisions that are broader in scope cannot be enforced by EPA; the State, however, will continue to implement and enforce such provisions under State law.

This action only applies to Nebraska's UST Program requirements pursuant to RCRA section 9004 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law. It complies with applicable Executive Orders (EOs) and statutory provisions as follows:

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

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023), because this action approves and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 9004 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State. Therefore, this action was not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because this action authorizes State requirements pursuant to RCRA section 9004 and imposes no requirements beyond those imposed by State.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandates as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments because this action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State.

This action approves and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the State on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA underground storage tank program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it approves a State program.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA section 9004(b), EPA grants a State's application for approval as long as the States the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State approved application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, do not apply to this action.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) direct Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations. Because this action approves pre-existing State rules that are no less stringent than existing Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898 or Executive Order 14096.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report containing this document and other required information to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, this action will be effective February 7, 2025 because it is a direct final rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 282 as follows:

NIH is completing a multiyear initiative to modernize the ClinicalTrials.gov website to deliver an improved user experience on an updated platform that enhances efficiency. The modernized website integrates content from the prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov website, which is referenced in several sections of 42 CFR part 11 as the web address for obtaining information on formatting and other guidance, into the centralized ClinicalTrials.gov website at https://clinicaltrials.gov for convenience and ease of access. This address change necessitates amending the regulation to update the URL for the prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov successor site. NIH considered other options and concluded that this final rule technical amendment is necessary because the current codified URL is referenced throughout the regulation itself ( i.e., as opposed to the Preamble alone). Moreover, the “or successor site” modifier is not always used in the regulation; for example, 42 CFR 11.8 states “Information submitted under this part must be submitted electronically to ClinicalTrials.gov, in the format specified at https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov .”

The address change necessitates amending the regulation codified at 42 CFR part 11 by removing the URL address https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov wherever it appears in part 11, and adding, in its place, the URL https://clinicaltrials.gov or successor site.

Specifically, this action results in removing the URL https://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov and adding, in its place, the URL https://clinicaltrials.gov or successor site in §§ 11.4(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(3), 11.8, 11.44(e)(3)(i), 11.48(a)(5) and (b), 11.54(a)(1) and (b)(1), and 11.64(b)(1) in part 11.

Amending the regulation is time sensitive, as NIH completed integration of content from the prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov website into the modernized ClinicalTrials.gov website in June 2024. The address change is cost neutral, editorial in nature, and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties.

Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). The APA generally exempts rules from the requirements of notice and comment rulemaking when an agency “for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).

HHS has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this amendment to the regulation provides only technical or non-substantive, administrative changes to specify the location of information about formatting of information for submission, procedures, and tools as specified in the regulation.

Additionally, HHS finds good cause for these amendments to become effective on the date of publication of this rulemaking action. The APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication as “provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule” (5 U.SC. 553(d)(3). A delayed effective date is unnecessary in this case because the amendments do not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. As a result, affected parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Therefore, HHS finds good cause for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of this rulemaking action.

Further, it is in the public interest that correct and up-to-date information be contained in the affected sections of the regulation at 42 CFR part 11 as soon as possible.

NIH examined the impacts of this rule under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review; Executive Order 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review; Executive Order 13132, Federalism; the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612); and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Executive Order 14094 entitled “Modernizing Regulatory Review” amends section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). The amended section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of OIRA for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in this Executive order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case.

A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with significant regulatory action/s and/or with significant effects as per section 3(f)(1) ($200 million or more in any 1 year). OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is “not significant” under section 3(f) and does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act). Thus, a RIA is unnecessary.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” requires that Federal agencies consult with State and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with federalism implications. The Secretary, HHS, has reviewed this rule as required under the Executive order and determined that it will not have federalism implications. The Secretary, HHS, certifies that the rule will not have effect on the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize the significant economic impact of a rule on small entities. The Secretary has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written statement, to include an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing any rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments or more, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100,000.000 [adjusted annually for inflation (with base year 1995)] in any 1 year. The current inflation-adjusted statutory threshold as of January 2024 is approximately $183 million based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. The Secretary, HHS, certifies that that this rule does not mandate any spending by State, local, or Tribal government in the aggregate or by the private sector.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) is not applicable, because this rule does not contain any new information collection or record keeping requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, and this rule does not impact information collection and recordkeeping requirements in part 11 that are already approved under OMB Control Number 0925-0586.

The Secretary, HHS, has determined this rule is a non-major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8) and has provided a report thereon to the Senate, House of Representatives and General Accounting Office in accordance with that law.

Accordingly, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 216, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR part 11 by making the following technical amendment:

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirements in § 90.1207(e) and (f) on September 7, 2023. This rule section was adopted in the Commission's Seventh Report and Order, in WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 23-3, published at 88 FR 12565, February 28, 2023. In this Seventh Report and Order, the Commission adopted a proposal to collect more granular data on public safety deployments in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission also decided to continue using the Universal Licensing System (ULS) as the licensing database for public safety operations in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission directed the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (collectively the Bureaus) to make any necessary enhancements to ULS and obtain any necessary review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and announce by a notice when ULS is prepared to accept the granular data specified in § 90.1207(e) and (f) on public safety operations in the 4.9 GHz band. The Commission also directed the Bureaus to announce the compliance date for § 90.1207(e) and (f) by a subsequent notice and to cause § 90.1207(g) to be revised accordingly. ULS will be prepared to accept the granular data on December 9, 2024. Therefore, consistent with instructions from the Seventh Report and Order, this document revises § 90.1207 by adding compliance dates to paragraph (g) which states that compliance with paragraphs (e) and (f) is not required until paragraph (g) is updated. The Commission publishes this document as a compliance date of the rule. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens cause thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. Please include OMB Control Number, 3060-1312, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov .

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on September 7, 2023, for the information collection requirements contained in § 90.1207(e) and (f).

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

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for the information collection requirements in this rule is 3060-1312.

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: 3060-1312.

OMB Approval Date: September 7, 2023.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2026.

Title: Sections 90.1207(e) through (f), Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,871 respondents; 3,871 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 16-160 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7), and 1401-1473 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Total Annual Burden: 592,288 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $14,882,400.

Needs and Uses: On January 18, 2023, the Commission released a Seventh Report and Order in WP Docket No. 07-100 which adds new § 90.1207(e) and (f) to the Commission's rules requiring incumbent public safety licensees and public safety applicants in the 4940-4990 MHz (4.9 GHz) band to submit granular technical data into the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). Section 90.1207(e) requires applicants seeking to license new or modify existing facilities to submit granular technical data on their proposed operations into ULS. Section 90.1207(f) requires incumbent licensees to perform a one-time submission into ULS of the granular data specified in paragraph (e) for their existing operations and gives incumbent licensees at least a one-year period to complete this one-time collection.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 as follows:

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.

New York is transferring 50,000 pounds (lb) (22,680 kilograms (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: New York, 339,190 lb (153,854 kg) and North Carolina, 1,130,996 lb (513,011 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.