You may be affected by this final rule if you are engaged in organic mushroom production, pet food handling, or related activities. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Organic mushroom producers (including organic spawn producers);

• Organic pet food manufacturers;

• Individuals or business entities that are considering organic certification for pet food or mushroom production (or related activities, such as spawn production);

• USDA-accredited certifying agents (or “certifiers”), inspectors, and certification review personnel.

This list is not exhaustive but identifies key entities that this rule may affect. Other types of entities may also be affected. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the regulatory text and discussion below. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Through the amendments in this final rule, AMS is establishing standards for organic mushroom production and pet food handling. The standards are discussed in detail in this document. In summary, the rule:

• Establishes definitions for mushroom, mushroom mycelium, mushroom spawn, mushroom spawn media, and mushroom substrate for the purposes of the USDA organic regulations.

• Clarifies that mushrooms are a type of crop and updates the definition of crops to include mushrooms.

• Creates a new section of the organic regulations titled “Mushroom Production Practice Standard,” to describe standards related to the production of mushrooms, mushroom spawn, and products of mushroom production.

• Specifies allowed substances in organic mushroom spawn media and organic mushroom substrate.

• Requires that uncomposted plant materials used in mushroom substrate be organic when commercially available; requires that operations describe in their organic system plan the procedures and criteria used to search for organic materials and the recordkeeping system used to track purchases of nonorganic plant materials.

• Allows nonorganic wood materials in mushroom substrate and spawn media.

• Requires that operations use organic mushroom spawn when commercially available.

• Describes minimum requirements for compost used in mushroom substrate. (The requirements for compost used in other types of crop production ( i.e., plants) are unchanged.)

• Establishes definitions for pet and pet food for the purposes of the USDA organic regulations and clarifies that pet food is distinct from livestock feed under these regulations.

• Clarifies the requirements for composition and labeling of organic pet food using the existing regulatory framework for processed organic products.

• Allows use of synthetic taurine (an amino acid) in organic pet food, as well as other vitamins and minerals that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

As described in the DATES section of this rule, this rule becomes effective on February 21, 2025. However, AMS is allowing an additional two (2) years for organic operations to comply with the requirements of the final rule. Organic operations must comply with the final rule by February 22, 2027.

The compliance date establishes the date by which organic operations must comply with the requirements. However, organic operations may choose to comply with the final rule prior to the compliance date. For example, pet food operations may use taurine in organic pet food starting on the effective date of the final rule.

For a discussion of the public comments related to the rule's implementation and compliance dates, see “Responses to Public Comments on Implementation Timeline” sections below in III.C. for mushrooms and IV.C. for pet food.

This final rule amends the USDA organic regulations to establish specific standards for organic mushroom production and organic pet food handling. The purpose of these amendments is to resolve uncertainty and inconsistency in how the organic regulations apply to these two products. Inconsistent certification and enforcement practices for organic mushrooms and pet food fail to meet one of the purposes of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA): to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard (7 U.S.C. 6501(2)). Based on market penetration data and feedback from stakeholders, AMS believes that creating more consistency in the market and ensuring regulatory certainty will create conditions for growth in these two markets and other latent markets that support them, such as the markets for mushroom substrate and organic slaughter by-products.

Certifiers have been using the organic crop production standards to certify organic mushrooms; however, AMS believes new standards are necessary to adequately address unique aspects of mushroom production that differ significantly from plant production. Certifiers' attempts to interpret the existing crop standards for mushroom production are currently inconsistent, which may lead to producers inconsistently applying the standards to substrate, spawn, and compost for mushroom production.

Similarly, the current organic regulations do not specifically address pet food. Producers and certifiers have been applying a combination of the handling standards for processed products and the organic livestock feed standards to certify organic pet food, but their practices were not uniform. Neither the handling standards nor the livestock standards are sufficient to address the range of ingredients and nutrients that are necessary for pets. For example, the livestock feed standards include allowances for many of the nutrients that are necessary for pets but prohibit common pet food ingredients, such as slaughter by-products ( e.g., animal and poultry by-product meal, animal liver).

This rule also addresses feedback from the organic industry, which has asked USDA to implement outstanding NOSB recommendations, including standards for these two product categories. Stakeholders encouraged AMS to prioritize rulemaking for additional practice standards, including standards for organic pet food and mushrooms, at the March 2022 virtual listening session hosted by AMS. The changes in this rule are based on NOSB recommendations for mushroom production and pet food handling in response to the organic industry's interest in further developing the organic standards for these markets.

Market penetration data supports the idea that the organic mushroom and organic pet food markets have a reasonable expectation of growth if uncertainty and inconsistency are removed as barriers. Both markets currently lag behind their most-comparable organic sectors. In 2023, sales of organic produce accounted for a 15.2 percent share of all produce sales in the United States, 1 but mushrooms sold as organic only accounted for 9.6 percent of all mushroom sales during the 2023-2024 marketing year. 2 Considering that the consumer experience of purchasing mushrooms is typically similar to purchasing fruits and vegetables (they are packaged similarly and found in the same section of the grocery store), it is reasonable to conclude that some external barrier is inhibiting the organic mushroom market. Similarly, organic pet food accounts for only 0.32 percent of all pet food sales. The closest organic category of comparison for organic pet food is organic non-food products, which includes other products humans do not eat ( e.g., linen/clothing, supplements, and personal care products). All other non-food product types tracked by the Organic Trade Association have at least twice the market share of organic pet food, with the organic products accounting for between 0.76 percent to 3.3 percent of their total market sales. 3

In conclusion, AMS believes that clear and consistent standards for organic mushrooms and pet food may create the conditions necessary for organic markets to develop. Regulatory certainty encourages investment in nascent markets; investment increases production capacity; and production enables market growth. Clear standards will promote growth in the development of these markets by increasing consistency in certification and enforcement and removing uncertainty as a regulatory barrier to production and certification. Additionally, growth in these markets is likely to ensure consistent demand for organic inputs in underdeveloped markets like organic meat and organic slaughter by-products. Ensuring consistent standards across the organic industry also protects the integrity of the organic seal by building consumer trust in the label.

AMS provides additional discussion of the need for organic mushroom and pet food standards in the respective sections below (see “III.B. Need for Organic Mushroom Standards” and “IV.B. Need for Organic Pet Food Standards”).

The NOSB is a Federal advisory committee established by OFPA (7 U.S.C. 6518) to provide recommendations to USDA on the development of organic standards and regulations. NOSB recommendations are developed through a rigorous process involving technical information, stakeholder input through public comment, open meetings, and a decisive two-thirds majority vote of the Board. Although the Board cannot direct or bind USDA through its recommendations, USDA uses the NOSB recommendations to inform rulemaking, including this rulemaking.

In FR Doc. 2024-24966 appearing on page 87228 in the Federal Register of Thursday, October 31, 2024, the following corrections are made:

This final rule affecting the Watermelon Research and Promotion Plan (7 CFR part 1210) (Plan) is authorized under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 4901-4916) (Act).

USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under sec. 6 of the Executive order.

This action was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions will have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, or the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.

Under sec. 1650 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4909), a person may file a written petition with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) if they believe that the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Plan, is not in accordance with the law. In any petition, the person may request a modification of the Plan or an exemption from the Plan. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Afterwards, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a decision. If the petitioner disagrees with the ALJ's ruling, the petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling on behalf of the Secretary. If the petitioner disagrees with the Secretary's ruling, the petitioner may file, within 20 days, an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the district where the petitioner resides or conducts business.

Under the Plan, the National Watermelon Promotion Board (Board) administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, advertising, and promotion designed to strengthen the position of watermelons in the marketplace, and to establish, maintain, and expand markets for watermelons. To administer the program, §§ 1210.328 and 1210.341 of the Plan authorize the Board, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments on domestic producers growing 10 acres or more of watermelons, domestic first handlers of watermelons, and importers of 150,000 or more pounds of watermelons per year. The Board is familiar with both the program's needs and the rising costs of research and promotion initiatives and is able to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate.

This final rule increases the assessment rate from six to nine cents per hundredweight of watermelons. Domestic watermelon producers of 10 acres or more and domestic first handlers of watermelons will each pay four and a half cents per hundredweight, and importers of 150,000 pounds or more annually of watermelons will pay nine cents per hundredweight. The Plan specifies that handlers are responsible for collecting and submitting both the producer and handler assessments to the Board, reporting their handling of watermelons, and maintaining records necessary to verify their reporting(s). Importers are responsible for payment of assessments to the Board on watermelons imported into the United States through the U.S. Customs Service and Border Protection.

This final rule amends § 1210.515 of the Plan by increasing the assessment rate from six cents per hundredweight to nine cents per hundredweight. The assessment on domestic watermelon producers of 10 acres or more and domestic first handlers of watermelons increases from three cents per hundredweight to four and a half cents per hundredweight, and the assessment on importers of 150,000 pounds or more annually of watermelons increases from six cents per hundredweight to nine cents per hundredweight. The Board recommended increasing the assessment rate to address inflation's impact on buying power while maintaining competitiveness in the marketplace.

The Board discussed this recommendation over several months at various State and regional watermelon association meetings in addition to presenting at a public town hall meeting on February 23, 2024, at the National Watermelon Association's (NWA) annual convention. The Board sent out postcards to all industry contacts in their database to invite them to the NWA town hall meeting and provide information on the potential assessment increase. The Board met on February 24, 2024, and voted unanimously to propose the assessment increase. Board members present for the vote represented domestic producers, first handlers, and importers.

Since the Board's inception in 1989, the Board only raised the assessment rate one other time, in 2008. From 2008 to 2023, according to the Board, the United States experienced inflation of 43.7%, which equates to 2.3% when compounded annually. This dollar devaluation translates to a loss in buying power of roughly 30% since the previous assessment increase was instituted. The erosion of buying power and continued inflationary pressure on funds limits the Board's research and promotion activities. The raised assessment rate further supports the Board's goal of a balanced budget beginning in 2025, while still allowing for increased research and promotion of watermelon across the Board's communication, marketing, foodservice, and research committees.

Section 1210.341 of the Plan states, in part, that in the case of an importer, the assessment shall be equal to the combined rate for domestic producers and handlers and shall be paid by the importer at the time of entry of the watermelons into the United States. Accordingly, with the increased assessment rate of nine cents per hundredweight, domestic watermelon producers of 10 acres or more and domestic first handlers of watermelons will each pay four and a half cents per hundredweight, and importers of 150,000 pounds or more annually of watermelons will pay nine cents per hundredweight. This assessment increase is consistent with sec. 1647(f) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4906(f)), that permits changes in the assessment rate through notice and comment procedures. Section 1210.341(b) of the Plan states that assessment rates shall be fixed by the Secretary in accordance with sec. 1647(f) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4906(f)). Further, not more than one assessment on a producer, handler, or importer may be collected on any lot of watermelons. Accordingly, the final rule revises § 1210.515(a) of the Plan to reflect the recommendation of the Board as it relates to assessments.

The final rule also includes changes to § 1210.515(b) of the Plan to amend language and make non-substantive corrections to the text. These edits are administrative changes and will have no impact on the assessment rate. This final rule amends the misspelling of “scheudle” to “schedule”; amends “U.S. Customs Service (USCS)” to “U.S. Customs Service and Border Protection (Customs)”; amends “USCS” to “Customs”, and amends “of any other” to “or any other”. The final rule also adds clarifying language and amends “may submit the Board” to “may submit to the Board”.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ], AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on the small producers, handlers, and importers that will be affected by this final rule. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory action to scale on businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened.

Domestic producers of less than 10 acres of watermelons are exempt from this program. Importers of less than 150,000 pounds of watermelons per year are also exempt. According to the Board, there are approximately 429 producers, 121 first handlers, and 183 importers who are subject to the provisions of the Plan.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers of watermelons as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3.75 million [NAICS code 111219—Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming] and small agricultural service firms (handlers and importers) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34.0 million [NAICS code-111514—Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning)]. Under these definitions, the majority of the producers, handlers, and importers that will be affected by this final rule will be considered small entities. This conclusion is based on the following computations and data, using the Board's assessment rate of six cents per hundredweight.

For 2023, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported a season average producer price per pound of $0.214. The Board estimated the Freight on Board (FOB) price to be $0.284 for both importers and handlers in 2023. The Board reported that 2023 assessments received from domestic entities totaled $2.247 million, with equal proportions of $1.1235 million coming from producers and handlers. Dividing $1.1235 million by half of the assessment rate of $0.06 per hundredweight, as producers and handlers evenly split the assessment, yields an estimate of total producer pounds assessed of 3,745.0 million ($1.1235 million divided by $0.0003 per pound). Dividing the total pounds assessed quantity by 429 producers yields an average assessed pounds per producer estimate of 8.73 million. Multiplying the annual assessed pounds per producer estimate of 8.73 million pounds by the 2023 NASS season average producer price per pound of $0.214 yields an average annual watermelon sales receipts per producer estimate of $1.87 million. This is well below the SBA small producer size threshold of $3.75 million.

With an equal proportion of annual domestic assessments coming from handlers, the total handler pounds assessed is also 3,745.0 million. Dividing total handler pounds assessed by 121 handlers yields an average assessed pounds per handler estimate of 30.95 million pounds. Multiplying this estimate of annual assessed pounds per handler of 30.95 million pounds by the season average handler price per pound of $0.284, provided by the Board, yields an estimate of average annual watermelon sales receipts per handler of $8.79 million. This is well below the SBA small handler size threshold of $34.0 million.

The Board reported that assessments received from importers totaled $1.196 million in 2023. Dividing $1.196 million by the assessment rate of $0.06 per hundredweight ($0.0006 per pound) yields an estimate of total importer pounds assessed of 1,993.3 million. Dividing the total pounds assessed by the number of importers, 183, yields an average assessed pounds per importer estimate of 10.89 million. Multiplying this estimate of annual assessed pounds per importer of 10.89 million pounds by the season average importer price per pound of $0.284 yields an estimate of average annual watermelon sales receipts per importer of $3.09 million. This is well below the SBA small importer size threshold of $34.0 million. Assuming normal distributions, the majority of producers, handlers, and importers will be classified as small businesses according to SBA size standards.

This final rule amends § 1210.341 of the Plan to mandate that domestic watermelon producers of 10 acres or more and domestic first handlers of watermelon each pay an assessment rate of four and a half cents per hundredweight, and importers of more than 150,000 pounds or more annually of watermelons pay an assessment of nine cents per hundredweight. Assessments under the program are used by the Board to finance promotion, research, and educational programs designed to increase consumer demand for watermelons in the United States and international markets. This action is the first time the Board has raised the assessment rate since 2008, and the second time the rate has been raised since the program's inception in 1989. The Plan is administered by the Board under the USDA supervision.

According to the Board, the increased assessment rate allows the Board to sustain and expand the promotional, research, and communications programs. The Board approved proposing the assessment rate increase at its February 24, 2024, meeting. This assessment increase is consistent with sec. 1647(f) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4906(f)) that permits changes in the assessment rate through notice and comment procedures, as the proposed rule was open for a 30-day comment period. Section 1210.341(b) of the Plan states that assessment rates shall be fixed by the Secretary in accordance with sec. 1647(f) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4906(f)). Currently, § 1210.515(a) of the Plan states that an assessment of three cents per hundredweight shall be levied on all watermelons produced, and on all watermelons first handled for consumption as human food. It also states that an assessment of six cents per hundredweight shall be levied on watermelons imported into the United States for consumption as human food. Further, not more than one assessment on a producer, handler, or importer may be collected on any lot of watermelons. Under this final rule, § 1210.515(a) of the Plan is revised to increase the assessment rate from six cents to nine cents per hundredweight. The final rule increases the assessment rate of three cents per hundredweight to four and a half cents per hundredweight to be levied on all watermelons produced and on all watermelons first handled for consumption as human food in the United States, and increases the assessment rate from six cents to nine cents per hundredweight to be levied on all watermelons imported into the United States for ultimate consumption as human food.

The Board contracted with an independent industry analyst to conduct an inflation impact analysis using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The base year for the analysis was 2008, the year of the previous assessment rate increase, and the analysis extended through April 2023. The CPI was 211.080 in January 2008 and 303.363 in April 2023. Dividing 303.363 by 211.080 yields a ratio of 1.437, or an increase of 43.7 percent. This inflation rate equates to 2.3% when compounded annually. Dividing the Board's average annual revenue throughout this period of $3,024,721 by the CPI change ratio of 1.437 yields a figure of $2,104,601. This decline of $920,120 shows the budget's reduced buying power of roughly 30 percent since the previous assessment increase. This reduction in buying power due to inflation has a significant impact on the industry's ability to compete for market share. The cost of media services, research programs, promotional opportunities, as well as general administrative costs and fees paid to USDA have continually risen. USDA's AMS oversight costs were budgeted at $105,000 in 2008, compared to $147,000 for 2023. It is AMS policy that all research and promotion programs be charged in a fair and equitable manner. Assessments collected have not kept pace with these increasing costs across this time. Movement and sales of watermelon continue to grow, however, that growth has not outpaced the negative effects of inflation.

Armada Corporate Intelligence conducted a five-year return on investment (ROI) study for the Board from 2017-2021, to determine the impact of Board activities on the demand for watermelons. The resultant ROI for the Board's promotional endeavors is approximately 19:1, which displays that the activities of the Board have a significant positive impact on the watermelon industry. For further details, the study is located at https://www.watermelon.org/press-releases/watermelon-board-announces-significant-positive-impact-for-watermelon-industry-with-191-roi/. Armada Corporate Intelligence's 2021 econometric analysis is aligned with prior economic studies developed for the Board, including Dr. Harry Kaiser of Cornell University's 2017 analysis. 1

With the increased assessment, the financial commitment of the US watermelon industry for research and promotion activity will increase approximately 50% in current dollars. For example, if we apply the assessment increase to 2023, in which collections totaled $3,442,105, the increase in assessments collected would have been approximately $1,721,053. The Board will use the additional funds to expand promotion and research activities, maintain operating reserves, and address inflation's impact on buying power.

The Board estimates the adjusted assessment rate of nine cents per hundredweight will increase the cost to watermelon producers and handlers from $12 per truckload of watermelons to $18 per truckload of watermelons. Similarly, the adjusted assessment rate will increase the cost to watermelon importers from $24 a truckload to $36 a truckload. This is based on a 40,000-pound net weight of watermelons per truckload.

Regarding alternatives, first, the Board considered maintaining the current assessment rate of six cents per hundredweight. However, with no increase to the assessment rate, the Board determined many research and promotion programs would be reduced or eliminated to balance the budget. Consequently, the alternative of maintaining the current assessment rate was rejected.

The second alternative considered by the Board was a two-cent increase to the assessment rate, raising the assessment rate from six cents per hundredweight to eight cents per hundredweight. This would allow the Board to operate with a balanced budget beginning in 2025, in addition to increasing investment in Board promotions. However, the Board decided against supporting a two-cent increase as inflationary pressure may further limit operations of the Board in coming years.

The third alternative considered by the Board was a tiered increase of the assessment rate with a two-cent increase effective on January 1, 2025, for a rate of eight cents per hundredweight, and an additional one-cent increase effective on January 1, 2026, for a rate of nine cents per hundredweight. This option to spread the assessment increase over a prolonged period was considered, but the Board ultimately decided against this alternative to avoid confusion with concurrent annual assessment adjustments.

This final rule also includes administrative changes to § 1210.515(b) of the Plan to correct non-substantive and typographical errors. These administrative changes have no impact on the assessment rate.

This rule will not impose additional recordkeeping requirements on first handlers, producers, or importers of watermelons. Producers of fewer than 10 acres of watermelon and importers of less than 150,000 pounds of watermelon annually are exempt. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation [5 CFR part 1320] which implements the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. chapter 35], the information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Plan have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. This rule will not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities or citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA determined this rule is consistent with the Act and would effectuate its purposes.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2024 (89 FR 56234). The proposed rule was featured on the Board's website, in addition to being distributed to all industry stakeholders via the Board's Watermelon Update monthly newsletter. A copy of the proposed rule was also made available through the internet by AMS via https://www.regulations.gov. A 30-day comment period ending on August 8, 2024, was provided for interested parties to respond to the proposal.

During the proposed rule's 30-day comment period, AMS received 33 comments, which may be viewed on https://www.regulations.gov. Twenty-four comments received were in support of the changes, seven were opposed, and two were unrelated to the assessment increase or the amendment to regulatory language.

Of the comments supporting the changes, 17 commenters stated the assessment increase would help strengthen research and promotion activities, with 12 of the supportive commenters additionally stating that the increased assessment rate would in turn benefit growers, handlers, and importers across the industry by raising the demand for watermelons through expanded marketing initiatives. Four of these commenters further acknowledged that the Board has a track record of delivering a positive ROI for the industry that allows the Board to maintain competitiveness in the marketplace. Four commenters provided generic support for the assessment increase.

Of the seven comments that opposed the increase, four commenters voiced concern that the industry already faces enough cost increases across operations due to inflation with two commenters additionally requesting for the Board lower costs rather than raise them. The Board feels they have exhausted all cost-saving measures including scaling back programs and liquidating reserve funds. Before proposing this assessment increase, the Board identified a loss in buying power of roughly 30 percent since the last assessment increase in 2008, which impacts the amount and quality of the research and promotion initiatives the Board can implement. Therefore, a lower assessment rate would further reduce the activities the Board can afford, possibly reducing their ROI.

One comment did not support the assessment increase and expressed concern of being unsure how the additional funds would be utilized. The Plan strictly dictates how the funds can be expended. The Board will fund additional promotional and research initiatives across the communication, marketing, foodservice, and research committees the Board aims to support with an increased budget. These specifically include activities like campus pop-up events to promote watermelon to Gen Z, expanding in-store advertising experiences, conducting recipe contests to reach foodservice operators, and investing further into consumer research. These activities are outlined in the potential budget examples distributed by the Board on their website, which was also provided to the industry through an email in February 2024: https://www.watermelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/The-Case-for-the-2025-NWPB-Assessment-Increase-12-11.pdf.

One opposing comment from an international grower indicates that costs are too high, and that their Federal and State governments do not support them in mitigating against rising farming costs. The same commenter also indicates demand for watermelons has been low for years and that importers will be unfairly affected by the increase since a majority of the crop is imported for United States consumption. AMS acknowledges this comment. However, it is not in the Board's purview to attempt to influence inflation's effect on farming costs, as the Board is prohibited from utilizing funds to influence governmental policy or action as stated in sec. 1647(g)(3) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4906(g)(3)). As mentioned in the proposed rule, inflation has affected farming and marketing costs across the industry which requires the Board to raise the assessment rate to fund promotional activities that maintain and expand the market for watermelons. According to the Board's FOB and movement data, (which is available on their website: https://www.watermelon.org/audiences/industry/assessment/ ), the demand for watermelons has increased significantly since the last assessment increase from 4.3 billion pounds in 2008 to 5.5 billion pounds in 2023. The assessment increase is structured so importers pay nine cents per hundredweight, and handlers and producers split the cost each remitting four and a half cents per hundredweight. This is modeled by the current assessment structure of the Plan where importers pay six cents per hundredweight and handlers and procedures each remit three cents per hundredweight. The assessment rate structure borne on the industry is reflective of the production of the commodity. Additionally, four importers of watermelons left supportive comments for the assessment increase during the comment period, with one stating that the Board's efforts increase demand for watermelons in the United States which is evident as the number of watermelons imported from Mexico continue to grow.

Another commenter who stated opposition to the changes presented in the proposed rule voiced concern that importers of watermelons may not have equitable opportunities to address questions or concerns regarding the increase or other Board funded activities. The commenter asked if government officials of exporter countries were notified of the proposed assessment increase. AMS acknowledges this comment and notes that the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register to provide notice to all interested parties, including government officials of exporting countries, of the proposed modifications. The comment period provided an opportunity for industry members and the public alike to voice any concerns they may have with the proposed changes to the Plan. As with other interested parties, government officials had notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed assessment increase. No government officials commented on the proposed rule. Additionally, prior to the publication of the proposed rule, the Board conducted outreach to industry stakeholders, including those representing imported watermelons. For example, the Board presented potential budgetary examples with the assessment increase to inform stakeholders, including importers, of the proposed assessment increase and activities that could be funded by the Board prior to the publication of the proposed rule. The Board presented at various state and regional association meetings, including the National Watermelon Association, which was attended by importers of watermelons, providing all growers equal opportunity to raise questions. In addition, the Board currently has nine importers members who represent the industry and help oversee the Board's policies and budget. AMS and the Board agree that transparency and communication to all stakeholders is critical, and accordingly, the Board notified the industry of the potential assessment increase through a variety of channels including industry-wide newsletters, regional and national conventions, and email correspondence.

AMS received two non-substantive comments. One of the unrelated comments was focused on pest control, and another voiced support for an athlete sponsored by the Board.

Accordingly, no changes were made to the rule as proposed, based on the comments received.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Board, the comments received, and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends part 1210, chapter XI of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Section 129D of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) generally requires creditors to establish escrow accounts for certain first-lien higher-priced mortgage loan transactions. However, TILA section 129D also permits the CFPB to exempt creditors from this higher-priced mortgage loan escrow requirement if they meet certain requirements, including any asset-size threshold that the CFPB may establish.

In the 2013 Escrows Final Rule, 1 the CFPB established an asset-size threshold of $2 billion, which would adjust automatically each year, based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars. 2 In 2015, the CFPB revised the asset-size threshold for small creditors and how it applies. The CFPB included in the calculation of the asset-size threshold the assets of the creditor's affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions secured by first liens during the applicable period and added a grace period to allow an otherwise eligible creditor that exceeded the asset limit in the preceding calendar year (but not in the calendar year before the preceding year) to continue to operate as a small creditor with respect to transactions with applications received before April 1 of the current calendar year. 3 For 2024, the threshold was $2.640 billion.

During the 12-month period ending in November 2024, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.9 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $2.717 billion for 2025. 4 Thus, if the creditor's assets together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2024 are less than $2.717 billion on December 31, 2024, and it meets the other requirements of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii), the creditor will be exempt from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans in 2025 and will also be exempt from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans for purposes of any loan consummated in 2026 with applications received before April 1, 2026. The adjustment to the escrows asset-size exemption threshold also will increase the threshold for small-creditor portfolio and balloon-payment qualified mortgages under Regulation Z. The requirements for small-creditor portfolio qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(e)(5)(i)(D) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Likewise, the requirements for balloon-payment qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(f)(1)(vi) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Under § 1026.32(d)(1)(ii)(C), balloon-payment qualified mortgages that satisfy all applicable criteria in § 1026.43(f)(1)(i) through (vi) and (f)(2), including being made by creditors that have (together with certain affiliates) total assets below the threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), are also excepted from the prohibition on balloon payments for high-cost mortgages.

In the 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), 5 Congress directed the CFPB to issue regulations to add a new exemption from TILA's escrow requirement that exempts transactions by certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions. 6 In 2021, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing this exemption in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi) (2021 Escrows Rule). 7 The final rule exempted from the Regulation Z HPML escrow requirement any loan made by an insured depository institution or insured credit union and secured by a first lien on the principal dwelling of a consumer if: (1) the institution has assets of $10 billion or less; (2) the institution and its affiliates originated 1,000 or fewer loans secured by a first lien on a principal dwelling during the preceding calendar year; and (3) certain of the existing HPML escrow exemption criteria are met. In the 2021 Escrows Rule, the CFPB established an asset-size threshold of $10 billion or less in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi)(A), which will adjust automatically each year, based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars. Unlike the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii) and the other thresholds in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi), affiliates are not considered in calculating compliance with this asset threshold. For calendar year 2024, the asset threshold was $11.835 billion.

During the 12-month period ending in November 2024, the average of the CPI-W increased by 2.9 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $12.179 billion for 2025. Thus, a creditor that is an insured depository institution or insured credit union that during calendar year 2024 had assets of $12.179 billion or less on December 31, 2024, satisfies this criterion for purposes of any loan consummated in 2025 and for purposes of any loan secured by a first lien on a principal dwelling of a consumer consummated in 2026 for which the application was received before April 1, 2026.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the CFPB finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 35(b)(2)(iii)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii), and comment 35(b)(2)(vi)(A)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(vi). The amendments in this final rule are technical and merely apply the formulae previously established in Regulation Z for determining any adjustments to the exemption thresholds. For these reasons, the CFPB has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the CFPB has determined the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The CFPB finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2025. The amendments in this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, and they merely apply the method previously established in the agency's regulations for automatic adjustments to the threshold.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 8 As noted previously, the CFPB has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirement relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis does not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 9 the CFPB reviewed this final rule. The CFPB has determined that this rule does not create any new information collections or substantially revise any existing collections.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the CFPB will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth above, the CFPB amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

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 establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Austin Airport, Austin, NV.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-2104 in the Federal Register (89 FR 75510; September 16, 2024), proposing to establish Class E airspace at Austin Airport, Austin, NV. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two identical comments were received in favor of the proposal.

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

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Austin Airport, Austin, NV.

The Class E airspace includes that airspace within a 3.5-mile radius of the Austin Airport Reference Point as well as three extensions due to rising terrain to the north and southwest of the airport. The two northern expansions contain departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface. The southwest extension contains departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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 Class D airspace, Class E2 surface area, and Class E5 airspace area to support IFR operations at Camp Guernsey Airport, Guernsey, WY.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-1856 in the Federal Register (89 FR 71189; September 03, 2024), proposing to modify Class D airspace, Class E2 surface area, and Class E5 airspace area to support IFR operations at Camp Guernsey Airport, Guernsey, WY.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D, Class E2 and Class E5 airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E5 airspace area at Camp Guernsey Airport, Guernsey, WY.

The Class E5 airspace area is modified to within a 6.7-mile radius of the airport and within 6.7 miles each side of the airport's 143° bearing extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 18 miles southeast of the airport, excluding that airspace within R-7001A and R-7002B when active. This modification accommodates IFR arrival operations descending through 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface.

Additionally, administrative amendments have changed Camp Guernsey Airport's legal descriptions. The city location is amended to Guernsey, WY. The airport's Class D airspace and Class E2 surface area legal descriptions have the updated part-time airspace text. Lastly, exclusionary text referencing special use airspace has been added to all airspace legal descriptions associated with Camp Guernsey Airport, WY.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area and revokes Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D or Class E surface area to support IFR and VFR operations at Buckley Space Force Base, Aurora, CO.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-1857 in the Federal Register (89 FR 73022; September 09, 2024), proposing to amend the Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area and revoke the Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D or Class E surface area Buckley Space Force Base, Aurora, CO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received in favor of the proposal.

Class D, E2, and E4 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as a surface area and revoking the Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D or Class E surface area at Buckley Space Force Base, CO.

The lateral boundaries of the airport's Class D and Class E surface areas are insufficiently sized and expanded to the southeast to better contain IFR arrivals when less than 1,000 feet above the surface and departing IFR aircraft until reaching the next adjacent airspace. Additionally, an approximately 0.30 nautical mile gap between Class E and Class G airspaces is closed by merging the Buckley Space Force Base and Centennial Airport surface areas. As such, the Buckley Space Force Base Class D and Class E surface areas are modified to be within a 4.4-mile radius of the airport, within 2 miles northeast and 4 miles southwest of the airport's 151° bearing extending to 7.1 miles southeast, and within 4 miles south and 4.4 miles north of the airport's 270° bearing extending to 4.7 miles west, excluding that airspace within the Denver International Airport Class B and Centennial Airport Class D airspace areas.

Buckley Space Force Base's Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class D or Class E surface area is revoked. The Class E extension is no longer required due to the expansion of the airport's surface area airspace.

Finally, the administrative portions of the airport's legal descriptions are modified to match the FAA's database. The airport's name on line two of both legal descriptions is changed to read “Buckley Space Force Base, CO.” Additionally, line four of both surface area legal descriptions now include “Denver International Airport, CO” and “Centennial Airport, CO” as references, as they are used to define the airport's surface areas.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2023-1477 in the Federal Register (89 FR 73020; September 09, 2024), proposing to modify Class D airspace and revoke Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D or Class E surface area at Centennial Airport, Denver, CO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Four comments were received in favor of the proposal.

Class D and Class E4 are published in paragraph 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace and revoking the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Centennial Airport, Denver, CO, in support of IFR and VFR operations at the airport.

The airport's Class D airspace lateral boundary has been modified to extend 3.9 nautical miles (NM) northwest and 4.6 NM southeast from the airport's 038° bearing extending 4.6 NM northeast. This expansion—along with the modification to Buckley Space Force Base Airport's (BKF) Class D airspace—has merged both airport's surface areas, which will require transiting VFR aircraft to utilize 500 feet of Class E airspace area between the top of BKF Class D airspace and the floor of the Denver Class B airspace. Additionally, APA's Class D airspace is expanded from a 4.4-mile radius to a 6.4-mile radius between the airport's 083° bearing clockwise to the 201° bearing. Due to rising terrain, this modification will better contain instrument departures until reaching 700 feet above the surface of the earth. APA's Class D airspace has also been extended from a 4.4-mile radius to a 4.9-mile radius between the airport's 201° bearing clockwise to the 347° bearing to better contain aircraft conducting a circling maneuver at the airport.

The Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area is revoked. This airspace is unnecessary given the airport's newly defined Class D airspace lateral dimensions provide suitable containment of applicable instrument flight procedures.

Lastly, this action amends the administrative text to the airport's legal description. The city's name is amended from Englewood to Denver. The airport's geographic coordinates are amended to 39°34′12″ N, long 104°50′57″ W. The part-time language has been removed as the facility operates 24 hours daily.

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

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

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

BIS is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774) to reflect the decisions made at the 2023 Intersessional Meeting in Rome, Italy, the 2023 Plenary Meeting in Paris, France, the 2024 Intersessional Meeting in Berlin, Germany and the 2024 Plenary Meeting in Paris, France. The Australia Group (AG) is a multilateral forum consisting of 42 participating countries and the European Union. These participants maintain export controls on a list of chemicals, biological agents, and related equipment and technology that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons program. The AG periodically reviews items on its control list to enhance the effectiveness of participating governments' national controls and to achieve greater harmonization among these controls.

As stated above, this rule implements changes agreed upon at the 2023 and 2024 Intersessional and Plenary Meetings of the AG. The changes made at each meeting are described below in chronological order.

The AG meeting of the 2023 Intersessional determined that not all AG members assess gas detection systems with the same criteria. Prior to this rule, the control text only referred to the ability to detect chemical warfare agents or AG controlled precursors at a concentration of less than 0.3 mg/m 3 . This made it unclear if a gas detection system with a noise level near 0.3 mg/m 3 was controlled, without taking into account the instrument detection limit. As a result, the AG agreed to a uniform way of applying the control language on toxic gas monitors and monitoring systems. To clarify the text, the AG agreed to the new term called `minimum detection limit' and a corresponding definition, both detailed below, to the control text.

The AG agreed to two changes to ECCN 2B351. First, in item paragraph .a, “at concentrations of less than” is replaced with “`minimum detection limit' of”, which is still followed by the 0.3 mg/m 3 concentration measurement. Second, it adds a technical note defining `minimum detection limit' as the lowest detectable concentration of the analyte required to produce a signal greater than three times the standard deviation of the toxic gas monitor's or monitoring system's signal when measuring a blank sample; alternatively, in the case of toxic gas monitors or monitoring systems having a deadband or programmed zero suppression, the `minimum detection limit' is the lowest detectable concentration required to produce a reading.

In the 2023 Plenary Meeting, the AG reached consensus on three primary revisions, mostly impacting ECCNs 1C350.d and 1C351.d.

ECCN 1C350.d had multiple changes. In February 2020 the AG added a number of precursors to the chemical weapons precursors control list. However, dipropylamine, which is also useful for the synthesis of the corresponding AG-controlled precursors, was not yet controlled. The AG determined that it was important to address this issue by controlling dipropylamine. Under ECCN 1C350, (C.A.S. #142-84-7) Dipropylamine was added as .d.11. The items that had been listed in item paragraphs .d.11 through .d.49 remain, with their item paragraphs shifting up by a factor of one.

Botulinum toxins can be neurotoxins or non-neurotoxins. Previously, the AG had not specifically stated if only botulinum neurotoxins should be captured by ECCN 1C351.d.3 or if all botulinum toxins are included. The AG agreed to update the language to “botulinum neurotoxins” noting the greater risk of their use in chemical and biological weapons activities relative to other botulinum toxins. Under ECCN 1C351, item paragraph .d.3 was revised to read as “botulinum neurotoxins” as opposed to previously reading “botulinum toxins.” Conforming changes were made in ECCN 1C991.c.1, .c.2, .d.1, and .d.3.

Neosaxitoxin is a potent neurotoxin causing similar symptoms to saxitoxin and gonyautoxins, both of which were controlled at the 2022 Plenary Meeting, in humans and animals. The AG found that the high toxicity of neosaxitoxin has been demonstrated in scientific models, as well as its resistance to heat; these factors make this toxin a potential threat as it could be used as a biological weapon like saxitoxin. Therefore, the AG agreed to control neosaxitoxin under the “List of Human and Animal Pathogens and Toxins for Export Control.” BIS details the toxins on this list under ECCN 1C351.d. To facilitate this addition, item paragraph .d.12 was redesignated to control neosaxitoxin (NEO), which shifted what had been in item paragraphs .d.12 through .d.21 up by a factor of one. Given this new control, license requirement note 2 to ECCN 1C351, which discussed neosaxitoxin, is removed, shifting notes 3 through 5 down by a factor of one. Additionally, multiple references to the item paragraphs for ricin and saxitoxin (now item paragraphs .d.15 and .d.16, respectively), had to be updated; these conforming changes occurred in: § 742.2(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)(vi)(B); § 742.18(a)(1), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(iii); ECCNs 1C351, 1C353, 1C991, 1E001, and 1E351.

Prior to the publication of this rule, centrifugal separators were already controlled under ECCN 2B352.c. Since these controls were put into place, the technology and characteristics of newly available single-use centrifugal separators shows a potential for abuse comparable to that of the listed centrifugal separators. Single-use centrifugal separators are new to market and are increasingly used in the biopharmaceutical industry. Single-use centrifugal separators are mainly designed for the separation of protein expressing cell cultures. Available single-use centrifugal separators create new ways of processing cell culture-based fermentations with a yield of 98% or more. Most single-use centrifugal separators systems are flexible in usage and simple for scaling. Therefore, the AG felt it necessary to revise the control text for these items, accounting for single-use centrifugal separators.

To best facilitate these revisions, structural changes were made to the existing ECCN 2B352.c. Prior to this rule, item paragraph .c comprised of c.1 through c.4, controlling multiple-use centrifugal separators. These parameters are now combined into a single .c.1, with new item paragraphs .c.1.a through .c; one parameter, what was .c.2 (a flow rate greater than 100 liters per hour), has been shifted up into the introductory text of .c, such that it applies to both single-use and multiple-use centrifugal separators. Now, item paragraph .c.2 will detail control text for single-use centrifugal separators, in which all components that come in direct contact with the substances being processed are disposable or single-use. As a conforming change, the technical note to item paragraph .c is revised to include single-use centrifugal separators.

At the 2024 Plenary Meeting, the AG reached consensus on controlling instruments for automated peptide synthesizers. Recent advances in peptide synthesis technology and instrumentation have increased both the speed of peptide synthesis and the length of peptide products, including peptides and proteins greater than 100 amino acids in length. 1 Most protein toxins that are controlled under ECCN 1C351 are over 100 amino acids in length and have an average length of 300 amino acids (with the notable exception of conotoxins, which range between 10-100 amino acids in length). Consequently, absent the imposition of additional controls on the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of certain peptide synthesis technology and instrumentation ( e.g., automated peptide synthesizers), there would be an increased risk that such technology and instrumentation could be used to produce controlled toxins for biological weapons purposes.

Automated peptide synthesizers are controlled under new item paragraph .k in ECCN 2B352. Item paragraph .k, contains two subparagraphs, .k.1 and .k.2. Item paragraph .k controls peptide synthesizers that are both: partly or entirely automated (.k.1) and capable of generating peptides at a `system synthesis scale' of 1 mmol or greater (.k.2). Item paragraph .k includes a technical note, providing a definition of a `system synthesis scale' as follows: denotes the maximum amount of peptide (mmol) that can be produced by the instrument using the largest compatible reaction vessels (L). For multiple peptides produced in parallel, this is the sum of the largest compatible reaction vessels (L). The new controls also include a nota bene referring readers to ECCN 2B350 for other chemical reaction vessels or reactors.

On April 20, 2023, BIS published Section 1758 Technology Export Controls on Instruments for the Automated Chemical Synthesis of Peptides (88 FR 24341) (Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule), seeking comments on proposed additional controls of peptide synthesizers. That rule, published under RIN 0694-AI84, which is its U.S. Government regulatory identification number, proposed identifying automated peptide synthesizers as emerging and foundational technologies consistent with Section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852. Section 1758 provides that BIS identify emerging and foundational technologies that are essential to U.S. national security and are not critical technologies, as that term is defined in the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. This final rule finalizes those proposed changes; however, this rule includes additional changes outside of the scope of the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule and includes items that are not Section 1758 technologies. Those changes are consistent with the authorities described in Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) to regulate the export, reexport, and transfer (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction as well as the mandate to seek multilateral controls. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment. To avoid public confusion, BIS created a new RIN for this rule, RIN 0694-AJ83, to encompass the finalized version of the proposed Section 1758 technologies and the additional changes.

BIS published two actions, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (87 FR 55930 (Sept. 13, 2022)) and the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule to better inform the AG process through public comments. BIS received five comments from the public on the 2022 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, to which BIS responded in the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule, but received no comments on the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule itself.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. In particular, and as noted elsewhere, Section 1753 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4812) authorizes the regulation of exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to U.S. jurisdiction as well as the mandate to “seek to secure the cooperation of other governments and multilateral organizations to impose control systems that are consistent, to the extent possible, with the controls imposed under” the EAR. Further, ECRA notes that the “national security and foreign policy of the United States require that the export, reexport, and in-country transfer of items . . . be controlled . . . [t]o carry out obligations and commitments under international agreements and arrangements, including multilateral export control regimes.” 50 U.S.C. 4811(2)(E). Further, Section 1754(a)(1) through (16) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4813(a)(1) through (16)) authorizes, inter alia: (1) the establishment of a list of controlled items; (2) the prohibition of unauthorized exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country); (3) the requirement of licenses or other authorizations for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of controlled items; (4) the apprising of the public of changes in policy, regulations, and procedures; and (5) any other action necessary to carry out ECRA that is not otherwise prohibited by law. Pursuant to Section 1762(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821(a)), these changes can be imposed in a final rule without prior notice and comment.

1. This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and commodity classifications, and carries a burden estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 35,739 hours. BIS estimates an increase of 40 new licenses each year, which would be an increase of 25 burden hours. This minimal burden hour increase is within existing estimates for this collection. Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain by using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. As stated in the preamble of this final rule, the amendments contained in this rule reflect decisions made by the AG. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation and delay in effective date. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this final rule by the APA or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), are not applicable. However, specifically on the changes related to the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule, the following applies: Consistent with the emerging and foundational technologies notice and comment requirements in Section 1758(a)(2)(C) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4817(a)(2)(C)), BIS published Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule to provide the public with notice and the opportunity to comment on its proposal to amend ECCN 2B352 as detailed above, the synthesis and collection of which BIS had identified for evaluation according to the criteria in Section 1758 of ECRA pertaining to emerging and foundational technologies. No public comments were made on the proposed rule.

Consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), BIS has prepared the following final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of the impact that this final rule will have on small businesses. This only applies to the portions of the rule that finalize changes to Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule; the other changes in this rule are exempt under ECRA from this requirement.

The policy reasons for issuing this final rule are discussed in the background section of the preamble of this document and, consequently, are not repeated here.

The objective of the Section 1758 portions of this final rule, and all other Section 1758 technology proposed rules published by BIS, is to control emerging and foundational technologies identified by BIS and its interagency partners as being essential to U.S. national security.

Other than the discussions above about the regulatory history of these items, no other Federal rules duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

This final rule will apply to all persons engaged in the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of the automated peptide synthesizers proposed for control under ECCN 2B352 and the related “technology” subject to the EAR. Presently, these instruments and related “technology” are used in research and development activities in the biotechnology field ( e.g., U.S. university, military and industrial laboratories). Therefore, BIS anticipates that the final controls will result in `deemed' export license applications (for the release of “technology” to foreign nationals located within the United States) to allow access to this “technology” by foreign students and faculty at U.S. universities, as well as by non-U.S. employees of U.S. biochemical firms. There will most likely also be `deemed' reexport license applications for the release of this “technology” to third-country foreign nationals located in foreign countries who are engaged in research and development activities involving this “technology.”

BIS does not collect or maintain the data necessary to determine how many of the affected persons are small entities as that term is used by the Small Business Administration. However, in the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule, BIS was able to estimate the number of license applications that the agency anticipates receiving as a result of this proposed rule and is using that estimate as a means of assessing the impact on small businesses. Using the North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS) 541714 (Research and Technology in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)), BIS determined that the standard small business size in this industry is 1,000 employees. Using Table 1a of the Census Bureau's 2019 Exports by Company Type and Employment Size and extrapolating to 1,000 employees, BIS then estimated that approximately 40% of all identified companies that export in this industry are small businesses. BIS also estimates that it will receive 40 license applications per year for the items described in this proposed rule (see the PRA estimates described in Rulemaking Requirements #2, above). Based on that information, BIS estimates that the agency will receive approximately 16 license applications per year from small businesses, or roughly 40% of the 40 estimated license applications.

The amendments finalized in this rule also trigger a small information collection burden under the U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) (15 CFR part 30), which contain the Electronic Export Information (EEI) filing requirements under the Automated Export System (AES). This FTR-related information collection has been approved by OMB under control number 0607-0152 (Automated Export System (AES) Program) and carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission. This collection, together with the aforementioned EAR-related information collections, would result in a total estimated cost increase to small businesses of just under $94 ( i.e., 3 hours and 7 minutes × $30 per hour) per year. Note that, for purposes of consistency, the $30 per hour cost estimate used for the EAR-related information collections described above is also applied to this FTR-related information collection (which also would involve work performed by export compliance specialists).

Based on the analysis provided above, this rule will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

The changes in this rule and the corresponding reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements are discussed in the background section of the preamble of this document and, consequently, are not repeated here. To the extent that compliance with the changes in this rule would impose a burden on persons, including small businesses, BIS believes the burden will be minimal.

As noted above, BIS does not believe that this rule will have a significant economic impact on small businesses. Nevertheless, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603(c), BIS considered significant alternatives as outlined in the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule. However, those options would have had a greater impact not only on small businesses, but also on research and development laboratories (both academic and corporate), which are involved in advancing these technologies. BIS has determined that finalizing focused controls on the items detailed above is the least disruptive alternative for implementing export controls in a manner consistent with controlling technology that has been determined, through the Section 1758 technology interagency process authorized under ECRA, to be essential to U.S. national security.

BIS is not allowing different compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses. If a small business is subject to a compliance requirement for the export, reexport or transfer (in-country) of this equipment and related “technology,” then it would submit a license application using the same process as any other company ( i.e., electronically via SNAP-R). The license application process is free of charge to all entities, including small businesses. In addition, as noted above, the resources and other compliance tools made available by BIS typically serve to lessen the impact of any EAR license requirements on small businesses.

Lastly, consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603(c), BIS assessed the use of performance standards rather than design standards and also considered whether an exemption for small businesses was practical under the circumstances ( i.e., within the context of the changes finalized by this rule).

This final rule does not contain an exemption for small businesses from this license requirement because BIS and its interagency partners had to assess whether these controls are essential to U.S. national security. Specifically, items controlled could be used for nefarious purposes and, as such, controlling these items on the CCL may be determined to be essential to U.S. national security pursuant to the interagency process for identifying emerging and foundational technologies that is described in Section 1758(a) of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4817(a)). An exemption for small businesses would undermine the effectiveness of these controls.

The FRFA prepared by BIS requested comments on the analyses and conclusions contained therein, including the overall conclusion that the amendments in the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. BIS did not receive any comments in response to the analyses and conclusions contained in the IRFA for the Peptide Synthesizers Proposed Rule.

Accordingly, parts 742, and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including an interest assumption—for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee etirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The interest assumption is also posted on PBGC's website ( www.pbgc.gov ).

PBGC uses the interest assumption in § 4044.54 to determine the present value of annuities in an involuntary or distress termination of a single-employer plan under the asset allocation regulation. The assumptions in part 4044 of PBGC's regulations are also used in other situations where it is appropriate for liabilities to align with private sector group annuity prices. For example, PBGC's regulations on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) and Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) provide that these assumptions are used to value liabilities for purposes of determining withdrawn employers' reallocation liability in the event of a mass withdrawal from a multiemployer plan. Multiemployer plans that receive special financial assistance under the regulation on Special Financial Assistance by PBGC (29 CFR part 4262) must, as a condition of receiving special financial assistance, use the interest assumption to determine withdrawal liability for a prescribed period. Additionally, plan sponsors are required to use some, or all of these assumptions for specified purposes ( e.g., reporting benefit liabilities in filings required under PBGC's regulation on Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting (29 CFR part 4010) or determining certain amounts to transfer to PBGC's Missing Participants Program on behalf of a missing participant of a terminating defined benefit plan under PBGC's regulation on Missing Participants (29 CFR part 4050)) and may use them for other purposes ( e.g., to ensure that plan spinoffs comply with section 414(l) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code)).

On June 6, 2024, PBGC issued a final rule at 89 FR 48291 that changes the structure of the interest assumption for valuation dates on or after July 31, 2024, from the select and ultimate approach to a yield curve approach. As described in the June 6 final rule, this “4044 yield curve,” is based on a blend of two publicly available bond yield curves that is adjusted to the extent necessary so that the resulting liabilities align with group annuity prices. The adjustments are referred to as “spreads.” PBGC determines and publishes spreads quarterly based on survey data on pricing of private-sector group annuities. As noted in the preamble to the June 6 rule, PBGC will post the 4044 yield curve on its website at www.pbgc.gov each month shortly after its underlying data become available. In addition, practitioners are able to determine the 4044 yield curve as of the end of any month using the publicly available bond yield curves and the spreads specified in the regulation.

This rule amends the regulation to specify the spreads used to determine the 4044 yield curve as of the last days of January, February, and March of 2025, ( i.e., the “first quarter 2025 spreads”).

PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. PBGC routinely updates the spreads component of the interest assumption in the asset allocation regulation so that the 4044 yield curve may be determined as soon as the underlying bond yield curves become available. These amendments are merely technical; they ensure that use of PBGC's interest assumption continues to yield liabilities in line with group annuity prices. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this rule expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:

The Chattahoochee River is one of the oldest and most stable river channels in North America. It begins as a tiny stream in northern Georgia, passes through the suburbs north of Atlanta, and flows 430 miles to its confluence with the Flint River at the Florida border. In 1978, the United States Congress established Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area by finding that the values of a 48-mile segment of the river and its adjoining lands in the State of Georgia, from Buford Dam downstream to Peachtree Creek, are of special national significance and “should be preserved and protected from developments and uses which would substantially impair or destroy them.” 16 U.S.C. 460ii. Congress stated that the Recreational Area shall consist of “the river and its bed together with the lands, waters, and interests therein.” 16 U.S.C. 460ii.

In 1984, Congress amended the Recreation Area's enabling legislation by stating that the corridor located within 2,000 feet of each bank along the 48-mile river segment was “an area of national concern.” This amendment increased the size of the Recreation Area from 6,300 acres to 6,800 acres. A subsequent amendment, passed in 1999, expanded the authorized boundary of the Recreation Area to include an additional 3,200 acres and provided funding to support the acquisition of priority land-based linear corridors to link existing units of the Recreation Area and protect other open spaces of the Chattahoochee River corridor.

The National Park Service (NPS) manages the Recreational Area as a unit of the National Park System. In addition to the enabling legislation described above, the NPS manages the Recreation Area pursuant to the NPS Organic Act of 1916, which gives the NPS broad authority to regulate the use of the lands and waters within System units. See 54 U.S.C. 100101; 100751(a).

The Recreation Area is located within the Atlanta metropolitan area and is a valuable outdoor recreation resource for local residents as well as visitors from the rest of the United States and around the world. The Recreation Area's 48-mile stretch of river and 15 land units provide an ecological oasis within a densely populated region and contain more than 950 species of plants and a diverse assemblage of wildlife. Its green space and extensive trail network offer abundant opportunities for visitors to explore the riverbanks, historic sites, rolling forests, grassy meadows, and rocky bluffs. The clear, cold, and slow-moving river supports a variety of water-based recreational activities such as floating, paddling, rafting, boating, wading, and fishing.

Bicycling is a popular form of recreation in and around the Recreation Area. Bicycles are allowed on roads and in parking areas that are open to public motor vehicle traffic; on an administrative road in the Cochran Shoals unit, the Fitness Loop, which also serves as a part of the trail system; and on a subset of trails. The total trail system is extensive, containing approximately 67 miles of designated trails in 12 of the 15 land units in the Recreation Area. Bicycle use occurs on approximately 11.6 miles of multi-use trails in the Vickery Creek, Gold Branch, Cochran Shoals, and Palisades units. Bicycle routes are designated in special regulations for the Recreation Area at 36 CFR 7.90 and in the Superintendent's compendium, which is a written compilation of designations, closures, permit requirements and visitor use restrictions imposed under the discretionary authority of the Superintendent, as required by 36 CFR 1.7(b). The Superintendent's compendium is available on the Recreation Area's website ( https://www.nps.gov/chat ).

Electric bicycles, which are defined in NPS regulations as two- or three-wheeled cycles with fully operable pedals and electric motors of not more than 750 watts that meet the requirements of one of three classes (36 CFR 1.4), are allowed in the Recreation Area where traditional bicycles are allowed.

In March 2021, the NPS published and sought public input on a Preliminary Trails Management Plan to help inform the development of the CTMP/EA and guide the development of a more cohesive trail system within the Recreation Area. Following the public scoping period, in April 2022, the NPS published the CTMP/EA which analyzes the potential environmental impacts of no-action and action alternatives. Under the action alternative, which is the NPS's preferred alternative, the total mileage of designated trails available for public use in the Recreation Area would increase substantially, and the NPS would improve the quality and sustainability of the trails to better serve visitors and achieve greater resource stewardship. The NPS would add approximately 32 miles of trails to the trail system, resulting in a 48% net increase in trail mileage, for a total of 99.3 miles. The NPS would allow bicycle use on 20.6 total miles of trail, an increase of approximately 9 miles. The NPS would continue to allow bicycle use on existing trails in four units of the Recreation Area. With the support of NPS partners, the NPS would construct a new, natural surface multi-use trail that would expand bicycle use in the Cochran Shoals unit, and construct new, hardened surface multi-use trails in the Settles Bridge, McGinnis Ferry, Suwanee Creek, Abbotts Bridge, and Jones Bridge units.

New multi-use trails would be designed and situated so that in the future they could connect to a proposed 100-mile regional Chattahoochee Riverlands greenway project. Many of the new trails would be constructed on previously disturbed corridors, such as utility corridors or remnant roadbeds, to minimize new disturbance and protect historic resources. Trail width would vary by location but would not exceed 10 feet. Trails would be constructed using permeable materials to protect water quality and prevent erosion. In wet locations, special structures, such as boardwalks, would be built to limit trail widening from visitors routing around puddles and mud, which tramples trailside vegetation.

In addition to evaluating the potential impacts of trail construction and modification activities, the CTMP/EA also evaluates the potential impacts of allowing bicycles on the new trails. Specifically, the CTMP/EA evaluates the suitability of each trail surface and soil conditions for accommodating bicycle use; and life cycle maintenance costs, safety considerations, methods to prevent or minimize user conflict, and methods to protect natural and cultural resources and mitigate impacts associated with bicycle use. An associated written determination concluded that bicycle use on all of the trails that would be designated in this rule is consistent with the protection of the Recreation Area's natural, scenic, and aesthetic values; safety considerations; management objectives; and will not disturb wildlife or Recreation Area resources. The CTMP/EA contains a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, the alternatives considered, maps of the affected areas, and the environmental impacts associated with the project. The CTMP/EA evaluates site-specific 60-foot-wide trail corridors. The NPS will determine final trail alignments within those corridors in consultation with NPS natural and cultural resources specialists, which could result in minor adjustments to the trail locations shown on the maps in the CTMP/EA. If the NPS needs to align a trail outside of an identified corridor, it would conduct additional environmental review of the alignment to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources and would document the change as an amendment to the CTMP/EA.

The NPS accepted public comments on the CTMP/EA for 30 days. In January 2023 following a recommendation by the Superintendent of the Recreation Area, the Regional Director for Interior Region 2, South Atlantic—Gulf, signed the FONSI that identified the preferred alternative in the CTMP/EA as the selected alternative. As stated in the FONSI, the NPS believes the selected alternative will improve the sustainability of the trail system, better protect the resources of the Recreation Area, and improve the visitor experience by facilitating circulation and less visitor conflicts through an expanded trail network. Implementation of the selected alternative will provide new opportunities for visitors to enjoy and be inspired by the Recreation Area.

The NPS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 22, 2024 (89 FR 44947). The NPS accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days via the mail, hand delivery, and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were accepted through July 22, 2024. The NPS received 104 comments on the proposed rule. Most comments supported more bicycling opportunities in the Recreation Area. Comments were generally focused on balancing increased recreational opportunities with desired resource conditions. Some comments raised concerns about impacts to wildlife, vegetation, trail conditions, ecosystem health, and visitor use conflicts that the NPS considered and evaluated in the CTMP/EA. These comments are not addressed in this final rule. The NPS evaluated the environmental impacts of two alternatives in the CTMP/EA and explained why it selected the preferred alternative in the FONSI. Upon completion of trail construction and authorization of bicycle use on the new trails, the NPS will monitor the trail network and implement mitigation measures as appropriate to improve sustainability, protect resources (including wildlife), and improve the visitor experience. After considering public comments and after additional review, the NPS is finalizing the proposed rule without change. A summary of the pertinent issues raised in the comments and NPS responses are provided below:

1. Comment: One commenter stated that construction of bicycle trails in the National Park System violates Executive Order (E.O.) 14072, Strengthening the Nation's Forests, Communities, and Local Economies.

NPS Response: The NPS has a responsibility to conserve the natural resources and ecosystems found within the National Park System, including forested areas, for the enjoyment of future generations. The construction of new trails under the selected alternative in the FONSI is consistent with the policy set forth in E.O. 14072. New trail construction will result in the removal of up to 66 acres of forest vegetation, which constitutes only 1.5% of the total forest acreage within the Recreation Area. Mature and old-growth forests would not be affected by trail construction. The NPS will mitigate potential impacts to forest vegetation by implementing mitigation measures identified in Chapter 2 of the CMPT/EA. New or rerouted trails will be located such that they would not interfere with natural processes such as forest regeneration. They would avoid large tracts of forest areas with high diversity and quality. Healthy trees of any size would not be removed except where they interfere with trail traffic and the trail cannot be relocated to eliminate the interference.

2. Comment: Several commenters encouraged the NPS to authorize bicycle use on all 21.9 miles of trail analyzed during the NEPA process.

NPS Response: This rule implements a portion of the selected alternative in the FONSI, which was evaluated as alternative 2 in the CTPM/EA. Alternative 2 evaluates bicycle use on 21.9 total miles of trail (see Table 4 to the CTMP/EA). This rule, however, identifies 20.6 total miles of trail that could be designated for bicycle use. This difference is attributed to a 1.3-mile trail that was identified in Table 4 of the CTMP/EA as located within the Johnson Ferry Unit. The NPS since has determined that this trail is located outside of the Recreation Area and is owned and administered by Cobb County.

3. Comment: Several commenters encouraged the NPS to allow all classes of e-bikes to be used on all trails where traditional bicycle use is allowed.

NPS Response: NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.30(a) give superintendents the discretionary authority to allow electric bicycles on park roads, parking areas, and administrative roads and trails that are open to traditional bicycles. Currently, the Superintendent allows all classes of electric bicycles on all existing bicycle trails. When new trails are constructed under the selected alternative, the Superintendent also could designate those trails as open to some or all classes of electric bicycles. If, in the future, the Superintendent determines that electric bicycles or certain classes of electric bicycles should no longer be allowed on any road, parking area, or trail, or that conditions for use should change, the Superintendent could make such changes by updating the Superintendent's compendium and providing adequate public notice under 36 CFR 1.7.

4. Comment: One commenter questioned how the NPS will educate the public about rules for bicycle use in the Recreation Area and encouraged the placement of signage related to wildlife crossings, specifically turtles.

NPS Response: The NPS will use several methods to educate the public about the trail system and bicycle use. These may include: posting standardized signs at trailheads and trail access points that display rules for bicycle use ( e.g., speed limit), safety guidelines, and trail conditions; providing printed materials (such as brochures and maps) that include detailed information about multi-use trails, rules, and safe riding practices; maintaining up-to-date information about the trail system and rules for bicycle use on the Recreation Area's website; using social media platforms to share information related to bicycling; and engaging local partners and stakeholders to promote safe and responsible bicycling by educating visitors about applicable rules. These actions will help ensure that visitors are well-informed about rules for bicycle use. This will help mitigate potential impacts to resources, including wildlife.

This rule amends paragraph (a) in 36 CFR 7.90, which contains the special regulations for the Recreation Area. The rule authorizes the Superintendent to designate approximately 20.6 miles of trails for bicycle use in nine units of the Recreation Area. The NPS is also changing the paragraph structure and replacing a specific web address as the location of maps showing bicycle routes with a general statement that maps will be available at the visitor center and on the Recreation Area's website. The regulatory text includes formal trail names if they exist to make wayfinding easier. Lastly, the rule removes an unnecessary provision in the current paragraph (a)(4)(ii) that provides the Superintendent with a specific, discretionary authority to close the trails in the Johnson Ferry South and Cochran Shoals units to mitigate soil erosion and water quality impacts from bicycle use after a rain event. Providing this specific authority is unnecessary because this rule, similar to the existing regulations, authorizes the Superintendent to limit, restrict, or impose conditions on bicycle use, or close any trail to bicycle use, or terminate such conditions, closures, limits, or restrictions after taking into consideration public health and safety, resource protection, and other management activities and objectives, as stated in 36 CFR 4.30(f). Further, as a practical matter, the redevelopment of the trail system will restore poorly designed trails to natural conditions in the Cochran Shoals unit and will position new trails on the landscape in that unit to improve physical sustainability, manage water, and limit erosion. There is no existing or planned bicycle use in the Johnson Ferry South unit.

The CTMP/EA constitutes the planning document and evaluates the criteria required by the NPS's general bicycle regulations at 36 CFR 4.30. The no action alternative evaluates the impacts of continued bicycle use on existing trails; and the action alternative evaluates the impacts of bicycle use on the new trails that will be constructed. This rule authorizes the Superintendent to allow bicycles on all trails where bicycles would be allowed under the selected alternative. This includes existing trails that do not require construction or significant modification and new trails that will be constructed. Although NPS regulations do not require special regulations to allow bicycles on existing trails that do not require any construction or significant modification, identifying all of the trails in the special regulations will make it easier for visitors to understand where bicycles are allowed. The other approach would result in some trails designated in the special regulations and others in the Superintendent's compendium.

Executive Order 14094 (E.O.) amends E.O. 12866 and reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and amended and reaffirmed by E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA determined that this final rule is not significant.

This rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This certification is based on information contained in the economic analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Threshold Analyses: Proposed Special Regulations to Designate New Trails for Bicycle Use at Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area.” The report may be viewed on the Recreation Area's planning website at the URL listed under the ADDRESSES section.

This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rulemaking does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally administered lands and waters. It has no direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rulemaking complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rulemaking under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's Tribal consultation policy and has determined that Tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes. Nevertheless, in support of the Department of the Interior and NPS commitment for government-to-government consultation, during the CTMP/EA process, the NPS sent notification letters to Tribal partners to invite participation in the planning process. The Tribes are the Absentee Shawnee Tribe, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern band of Cherokee Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Muskogee (Creek) Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Shawnee Tribe, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma. Additionally, the NPS has executed a programmatic agreement in coordination with consulting parties, including the State historic preservation office and affiliated Tribes, which describes historic identification actions as well as minimization and avoidance practices should it be determined that a proposed implementation action may impact a historic property. Additional information about Tribal coordination and the programmatic agreement is published in the FONSI.

This rulemaking does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NPS has prepared the CTMP/EA to determine whether this rulemaking will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This rulemaking will not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because of the FONSI. A copy of the CTMP/EA and FONSI can be found online at the URL listed in ADDRESSES .

This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211; the rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below:

On August 16, 2024 (89 FR 66659), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Delaware. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of a revision to the Delaware SIP that consists of amendments to Title 7 of the Delaware Administrative Code (7 DE Admin). Specifically, the amendments are to 7 DE Admin 1103 Ambient Air Quality Standards (DE 1103). DNREC's amendments to DE 1103 aligned the language of that regulation to be consistent with existing Federal regulatory standards. Specifically, DNREC revised DE 1103 to reflect: the most current national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground level ozone; amendments to update citations in DE 1103 to include the CFR dates in effect at the time DNREC amended DE 1103 for all NAAQS; and amendments to remove the SO 2 24-hour and annual primary standards. On May 14, 2024, DNREC submitted a withdrawal letter to remove an update to section 1.6.5 of DE 1103 in Delaware's SIP. Delaware withdrew its revision to section 1.6.5 because that regulation erroneously cites an EPA analytical method that was revoked by EPA. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Delaware on November 15, 2022. By a letter dated May 14, 2023, Delaware withdrew a portion of the submission that referenced an obsolete EPA monitoring methodology.

The CAA mandates that the EPA set NAAQS for criteria pollutants, which are ozone and related photochemical oxidants, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur oxides. The CAA also requires EPA to periodically review the relevant scientific information and the standards and revise them, if appropriate, to ensure that the standards provide the requisite protection for public health and the environment. The CAA also requires states to develop a general plan to attain and maintain the standards in all areas of the country and a specific plan to attain the standards for each area designated nonattainment.

The NAAQS for ground-level ozone were updated on October 1, 2015, to strengthen the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR 65291. 1 The primary and secondary standards established in 2015 are determined by the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over three consecutive years. In December 2020, EPA retained the 2015 standards without revision. See 85 FR 87256, December 31, 2020. 2

On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO 2 NAAQS based on its review of the air quality criteria for oxides of sulfur and the primary NAAQS for oxides of sulfur as measured by SO 2. 3 See 75 FR 35520. The 1-hour SO 2 standard was set at a level of 0.075 ppm, based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. EPA also revoked both the existing 24-hour and annual primary SO 2 standards.

Delaware's November 15, 2022 SIP submission consists of: (1) amendments to its ambient air quality standards in DE 1103 to reflect the current NAAQS for ground level ozone; (2) amendments to its regulatory citations to the CFR dates for the EPA sampling and analytical procedures and techniques for the various NAAQS that Delaware incorporates into its regulations, and (3) amendments to remove from DE 1103 the SO 2 24-hour and annual primary standards that have been revoked by EPA. Delaware's regulatory amendments aligned DE 1103 with current EPA's NAAQS regulations. By including these revisions to DE 1103 in the Delaware SIP, the SIP will also align with EPA's current NAAQS regulations.

The Delaware SIP's current primary and secondary ozone NAAQS standards are outdated at 0.075 ppm. DNREC's revision to DE 1103 updated the primary and secondary ozone standards in section 6.0 of DE 1103 to reflect the 2015 Ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. This approval action for Delaware's SIP submittal will make the SIP consistent with EPA's current ozone NAAQS.

DNREC has also amended DE 1103 to update its references to the dates for EPA's sampling and analytical procedures and techniques for the various NAAQS, that Delaware incorporates by reference into DE 1103. The dates, for all sections except 1.6.5, are updated to July 1, 2019, which was the most current version of the CFR as of the time that DNREC revised DE 1103. This approval action will incorporate into Delaware's SIP the NAAQS monitoring methodologies as codified in the 2019 CFR, which was the most recent version of the CFR at the time Delaware revised DE 1103. Updating these references will strengthen the Delaware SIP.

Additionally, Delaware removed subsections 4.2 and 4.3 from DE 1103. These subsections had set forth Delaware's SO 2 24-hour primary standard and SO 2 annual primary standard, which corresponded to the EPA's revoked SO 2 24-hour primary standard and SO 2 annual primary standard. This amendment to DE 1103 conforms the Delaware SO 2 ambient air quality standard with EPA's current Federal regulations. This approval action will align Delaware's SIP with EPA's current SO 2 NAAQS, at 40 CFR 50.17. No public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA is approving Delaware's submittal of November 15, 2022, as modified by the letter dated May 14, 2023, as a revision to the Delaware SIP.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of DE regulation 1103, as effective on July 1, 2019, excluding updates to section 1.6.5, as discussed in sections I and II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 4

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNREC did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an E.J. analysis and did not consider E.J. in this proposed rulemaking. Due to the nature of the proposed action being taken here, this proposed rulemaking is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 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 approving amendments to Delaware's ambient air standards may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

On April 13, 2023, Utah submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program. The EPA concludes that Utah's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Utah final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Utah has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), for all areas within the State, except for (1) lands located within formal Indian Reservations within or abutting the State of Utah, including the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, Paiute Indian Tribe (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes), Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indian, and Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, (2) any land held in trust by the United States for an Indian Tribe, (3) and any other land, whether on or off a reservation that qualifies as “Indian country” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Utah, including issuing permits, until Utah is authorized to do so.

The effect of this decision is that a facility in Utah subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. The State of Utah will continue to have enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:

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

• Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and

• Take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation with the State.

This action to approve these provisions would not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which the State of Utah is requesting authorization are already effective under State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register , we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule allowing the public an opportunity to comment. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a later Federal Register . You will not have another opportunity to comment, therefore, if you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this time.

Utah initially received final authorization on October 10, 1984, effective October 24, 1984 (49 FR 39683) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on: February 21, 1989, effective March 7, 1989 (54 FR 7417); May 23, 1991, effective July 22, 1991 (56 FR 23648); August 6, 1991, effective July 22, 1991 (56 FR 37291); May 15, 1992, effective July 14, 1992 (57 FR 20770); February 12, 1993, effective April 13, 1993 (58 FR 8232); May 5, 1993, effective April 13, 1993 (58 FR 26689); October 14, 1994, effective December 13, 1994 (59 FR 52084); November 10, 1994, effective December 13, 1994 (59 FR 56114), May 20, 1997, effective July 21, 1997 (62 FR 27501); January 13, 1999, effective March 15, 1999 (64 FR 02144); October 16, 2000, effective January 16, 2001 (65 FR 61109); May 7, 2002, effective July 8, 2002 (67 FR 30599); June 11, 2003, effective June 11, 2003 (68 FR 34829); and May 23, 2008, effective May 23, 2008 (73 FR 29987). On April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21843), the EPA withdrew the immediate final rule for final authorization of Utah's hazardous waste management program revisions published March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12277) following receipt of comment opposing this authorization.

On April 13, 2023, the State of Utah submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make a final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Utah's hazardous waste program satisfies all the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Utah final authorization for the following changes:

The State of Utah revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal hazardous waste revisions promulgated from February 12, 1997, through December 9, 2019 (RCRA Checklists 156, 190, 200, 202, 205 through 209, 211 through 215, 217 through 220, 222 through 233C, and 233D2 through 242). The State requirements from the Utah Administrative Code (UAC), effective January 17, 2023, are included in the chart below.

Utah has made amendments to its regulations that are not directly related to any of the Federal rules addressed in Item G.1 above. These State-initiated changes are: (i) conforming changes made to existing authorized provisions, primarily internal reference citation revisions due to the complete reorganization and renumbering of the State regulations; (ii) amendments that clarify and make the State's regulations internally consistent; and (iii) revisions associated with the modification to the State's approach from an incorporation by reference format to a verbatim format. These State-initiated changes are submitted under the requirements of 40 CFR 271.21(a) and include the following provisions from the UAC, as amended, January 17, 2023:

a. State-initiated changes that are conforming changes made to existing authorized provisions, primarily internal reference citation revisions due to the complete reorganization and renumbering of the State regulations—Chapter R315-15 Standards for Management of Used Oil: R315-15-1.1 introductory paragraph, (a), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii)(A), (b)(2)(ii) and (iii), (c)(1) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ii), (d)(1), (e)(3) introductory paragraph, (e)(3)(ii), (g)(4), (i); 1.3(b); 1.7(a) and (b); 2.3 introductory paragraph and (a); 3.3(a); 4.1(a)(4) and (f) introductory paragraph; 4.2(a); 4.5(d); 4.6 introductory paragraph and (b); 4.7(a)(6)(i) and (b)(5)(i); 5.1(b) introductory paragraph and (b)(3) introductory paragraph; 5.3(a)(4)(ii); 5.4(b)(2); 5.5(a), (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), (f)(2)(ii); 5.6 introductory paragraph, (a)(2)(i)(A) and (B), (b)(2)(i)(A); 5.7(c); 6.1(a)(3); 6.2(a)(1), (a)(2) introductory paragraph, (a)(3), (b)(1), (c); 6.4(c) introductory paragraph, (d); 6.5(a) introductory paragraph, (e); 7.6(b); 8.2(a); 11.1(a) through (c); 18(a); Chapter R315-124 Procedures for Decision making: R315-124-3(f); 5(a), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (d), (e); 6(b), (d)(1) through (5), (e); 7; 8(b)(4), (b)(6)(i); 9, 10(a)(1) and (2), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(5), (d)(1) introductory paragraph, (d)(2) introductory paragraph, (e); 11; 12(a)(3) and (4), (c); 13; 15; 16; 17(a) introductory paragraph, (b); 18; 31(a), (c), (d)(1)(i) through (iv), (d)(2) introductory paragraph, 32(a) introductory paragraph, (b)(1), (c); 33(a), (b), and (f); Chapter R315-260 Hazardous Waste Management System: R315-260-10(a), (c) introductory paragraph; 20; 21(a), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(3), (e); 22(m); 23; Chapter R315-261 General Requirements—Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: R315-261-1(a) introductory paragraph, (b)(2) introductory paragraph; 2(c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1), except (c)(1)(i), (c)(2), (d)(2) and (3), (e)(1)(iii), (e)(2) introductory paragraph, (e)(2)(iv), (f); 3(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iv) introductory paragraph, (a)(2)(iv)(C), (a)(2)(iv)(E), (b), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii)(B), (c)(2)(ii)(C)(1) and (2); (c)(2)(ii)(D) and (E), (d)(1) and (2), (f), (g); 4(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(4), (a)(6) and (7), 4(a)(8)(iii), (a)(9)(iii) introductory paragraph, (a)(9)(iii)(D), (a)(10), (a)(17) introductory paragraph, (a)(17)(iii), (a)(17)(iv)(C), (a)(18)(i), (a)(19), (b)(6)(i) introductory paragraph, (b)(6)(ii)(A), (b)(7) introductory paragraph through (ii) introductory paragraph, (b)(7)(iii) introductory paragraph, (b)(8), (b)(10), (b)(11) introductory paragraph and (ii), (c), (d)(2) introductory paragraph, (d)(3), (e)(2) introductory paragraph, (e)(2)(iii) introductory paragraph, (e)(2)(iv), (f) introductory paragraph, (f)(1), (f)(10), (g) introductory paragraph, (g)(1), 8; 9 introductory paragraph through (b); 10(a) introductory paragraph; 11(a)(1), (a)(3) introductory paragraph, (a)(3)(iii) and (xi), (b), (c); 20; 24(a); 30(a) and (b); 33 introductory paragraph through (b), (d); 35(a), (b)(1)(i) through (iii), (b)(4)(i), (c)(12); Chapter R315-262 Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements: R315-262-20(e) introductory paragraph; 23(a)(3), (d) introductory paragraph; 40(a), (b), (d), (e); 44(a) through (c); Chapter R315-263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste and Standards Applicable to Emergency Control of Spills for Any Hazardous Waste Handlers: R315-263-10(a) through (c); 20(d)(1) and (2), (e) introductory paragraph, (e)(3) through (e)(5), (f) introductory paragraph, (f)(3)(i) and (ii), (f)(4)(i) and (ii), (h) introductory paragraph, (h)(1); 22(b), (c)(1), and (e); Chapter R315-264 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: R315-264-1(a), (b), (d), (e), (g) introductory paragraph, (g)(4) through (6), (g)(8)(i) introductory paragraph, (g)(8)(ii) and (iii), (g)(9) and (10), (g)(11)(i) and (ii), (h), (j); 10(a); 14(a)(2), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(ii), (c); 16(a)(1), (b), (c), (d)(2) through (4); 17(c); 18(a)(1), (b)(2) introductory paragraph; 19(a)(1), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(3); 19(c)(1)(i) and (iii), (d); 30; 32(d); 34; 50; 52(a), (c), (d); 53(c); 55; 56(g); 74; 77 introductory paragraph, (a) through (c); 90(a)(1) through (2), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(1), (b)(3) through (5); 90(c) except (c)(1); 90(d) through (f) except (f)(1); 91(a), (b); 94; 93(a), (b) introductory paragraph, (c); 94(a)(3); 95(a); 96(a); 97 introductory paragraph, (h) introductory paragraph, (i) introductory paragraph, (j); 98 introductory paragraph through (b) except (a)(2); 98(c); (f) except (f)(2); 98(g) except (g)(1), (3), (g)(4)(i), (g)(5) introductory paragraph, and (g)(6)(ii) and (iii); 98(h); 99 introductory paragraph, (a) through (d) except (d)(2); 99(h) introductory paragraph, (h)(2)(i) and (ii), (i) introductory paragraph, (i)(1) and (4), (j); 100 introductory paragraph through (f), (h); 101(b), (d); 171; 175(a), (b)(4) and (5), (c) introductory paragraph, (d) introductory paragraph; 177, 178; 179; 221(a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) introductory paragraph, (d) introductory paragraph, (d)(1), (e) introductory paragraph, (e)(2)(i)(A), (f) introductory paragraph, (i); 222(a), (b); 223(a), (b)(6), (c) introductory paragraph; 226(a) introductory paragraph, (d)(1); 227(a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (c); 227(d) except (d)(2) introductory paragraph, (d)(2)(ii), and (e); 228(a)(1), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(2) and (3), (c); 229 introductory paragraph, (a)(1) and (2), (b); 230; 231(a) introductory paragraph; 232; 250(a) through (c) introductory paragraph; 251(b) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2) and (3); 251(d) except (d)(2); 251(e) and (f) except (f)(2); 251(k); 254(a) introductory paragraph, (c); 256 introductory paragraph, (a)(1) and (2); 258; 259(a) introductory paragraph; 253(a), (b)(6), (c); 270; 271; 272(c)(1)(i); 273 introductory paragraph, (a) introductory paragraph; 276(a)(1) and (2), (a)(3) introductory paragraph, (a)(4), (b)(2)(iv); 278 introductory paragraph, (a)(1) and (2), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(3) and (4), (d), (f) introductory paragraph, (f)(1), (g) introductory paragraph, (h) introductory paragraph, (h)(1), (h)(4); 279; 280(a) except (a) introductory paragraph, (a)(6), and (a)(8); 280(b); 280(c) except (c) introductory paragraph through (c)(2); 280(d) introductory paragraph, (d)(1), (d)(1)(ii), (e); 281 introductory paragraph, (a)(1) and (2); 282; 300; 301(a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(3) introductory paragraph, (d) introductory paragraph, (d)(1), (e) introductory paragraph, (e)(1), (e)(2)(i)(C); 301(f) except (f)(2); 301(k); 303(a) introductory paragraph, (c)(1); 304(a), (b)(6), (c) introductory paragraph; 309 introductory paragraph; 310(b) introductory paragraph, (b)(3) and (4), (b)(6); 312; 313; 316(c) through (f); 317(b); 340(a), (b)(2), (b)(4); 340(c) except (c)(1) introductory paragraph; 340(d), (e); 341; 342; 343 introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (c), (d); 344(a)(1) and (2), (c)(2); 345(a), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(6), (c), (e); 347(a)(2) and (3); 351; Chapter R315-265 Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: R315-265-1(a) through (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(3), (c)(8) through (10); (c)(11) except (i)(A) through (C) and (iv); (c)(12), (c)(13), (c)(14) introductory paragraph through (c)(14)(ii); (d) introductory paragraph, (e); 3; 4; 10; 12(b), 12(b) Comment; 14(a)(2), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(2)(ii) Comment, 14(c), 14(c) Comment; 16(a)(1), (c), (d)(2) through (4); 17(b) introductory paragraph; 19(a)(1), 19(b) introductory paragraph, (b)(3), (c)(1)(i) and (iii), (d); 30; 34, 50; 52(a), (c), (d); 55; 56(g) Comment; 71(b)(2); 74; 77 introductory paragraph through (d); 90(a) through (c) introductory paragraph, (d)(2), (d)(4), (d)(5), (e); (f) except (f)(1); 91(a)(3)(iv); 92(b) introductory paragraph, (b)(1), (b)(2)(vi) Comment, (c); 92(d) except (d) introductory paragraph; 93(a) introductory paragraph, (b) through (d)(1), 93(d)(3) introductory paragraph, (d)(4) introductory paragraph, (d)(6) through (f); 94(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (a)(2)(i) through (iii); 94(b) except (b)(2); 170; 171; 176; 177(a), (b); 178; 220; 221(b), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1), (d) introductory paragraph, (d)(1), (d)(2)(i)(C), (e), (f), (h); 222; 225(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(2)(ii); 226(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(3), 226(b)(3) Comment; 229 introductory paragraph, (a)(1); 230; 231; 250; 252, 252 Comment; 254; 255 except (b); 256(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1); 257 except (b) and Comment; 258; 259(b)(6), (c) introductory paragraph; 260; Chapter R315-270 Hazardous Waste Permit Program: R315-270-1(a), (b)(1) through (b)(3), (c) introductory paragraph, third through sixth sentences, (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iv) through (vii), (c)(5) through (7); 10(a), (c)(1), (e) introductory paragraph, (e)(1) introductory paragraph, (e)(1)(i) and (ii), (e)(4) and (5), (f)(1) through (3), (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(iii), (g)(2), (h)(2), (i), (j)(1)(ii), (k); 11(b) introductory paragraph, (b)(1), (c); 12; 13(a), (j); 14(b) introductory paragraph; (b)(2) through (7), (b)(9), (b)(11)(i) and (ii) introductory paragraph; 14(b)(11)(iv)(C) except (C)(I) and (C)(III); 14(b)(11)(v), (b)(12), (b)(13) through (18); (b)(20), (b)(22); 14(c) introductory paragraph through (c)(4)(ii) except (c)(2) and (c)(4) introductory paragraph; 14(c)(5), (c)(6) introductory paragraph, (c)(7) introductory paragraph, (c)(7)(iii), (c)(8) introductory paragraph, (c)(8)(ii), (c)(8)(v), (d)(1)(i); 15 introductory paragraph, (a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (c) through (e); 17 introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(1) and (2), (b)(4) and (5), (c); 17(e) through (h) except (f); 17(i), (j); 18 introductory paragraph, (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(iv) and (v), (d), (f) through (i) introductory paragraph; 19 introductory paragraph through (b), (c)(1)(v), (c)(3), (c)(5)(i), (c)(6) introductory paragraph and (ix), (c)(7) and (8); 19(d)(2); 20 introductory paragraph, (a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(2) introductory paragraph, (b)(3)(vii), (b)(4), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(5), (d) introductory paragraph, (e) through (h), (i) introductory paragraph; 21 introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph through (b)(1)(v) except (b)(1)(iii); 21(c) through (j) introductory paragraph; 23 introductory paragraph, (a)(2) through (b), (e); 28; 29; 30(a), (i)(4), (j)(2), (k), (l)(2) introductory paragraph, (l)(2)(ii)(B), (l)(3), (l)(4), (l)(6) introductory paragraph, (l)(7) through (10), (m); 31(c); 32(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (d); 33(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (a)(2) introductory paragraph; 40(a); 41 introductory paragraph, (a)(5), (b)(2); 43(b); 50(b), (c), (d); 51(a)(1) through (b), 51(c)(2) and (3); 60 introductory paragraph, (b)(1), (b)(2); (b)(3)(i) and (ii); (c)(3)(i) through (vii); 61(a) introductory paragraph, (b)(6); 62(a) introductory paragraph through (b)(1); (b)(2)(iv) and (viii), (b)(3) and(4), (b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), (b)(6) introductory paragraph, (b)(7)(iv) through (vi), (b)(7)(x), (b)(8), (b)(10), (b)(11), (c), (d); 63(a) through (d) introductory paragraph except (a)(1); 63(d)(1) and (2); 65(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (b), (d); 70(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c); 71(b); 72(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(4) and (5), 72(b) introductory paragraph through (b)(2), (b)(5) through (b)(8); 73(a), (b), (d) introductory paragraph, (e); 235(a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(1)(ii)(B)(II)(IIii), (a)(1)(iii)(A) and (B), (a)(2)(i)(A)(I), (a)(2)(ii)(B)(II)(IIii), (a)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), (b)(1)(i) and (ii); Chapter R315-273 Standards for Universal Waste Management: R315-273-1(a) introductory paragraph through (a)(2), 1(b); 2(a) and (b); 3(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1)(i); 3(b) except (b)(2); 3(c)(1) introductory paragraph, (c)(2), (d); 5 except (c); 8 except (a)(2); 9(e) “Destination Facility”, (h) “Generator”, (o) “Thermostat”; 10; 11(b); 13(a)(3) introductory paragraph, (a)(3)(i), (b)(2), (b)(3); 14 introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(iii); 15(a); 17(b); 18(b), 30; 31(b); 32(a)(3); 33(a)(3) introductory paragraph, (a)(3)(i), (b)(2), (b)(3); 34 introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ii) and (iii); 35(a); 37(b); 38(b); 39(c)(1) and (2); 50; 51(b); 52(a); 53(b); 54(b); 60(a),(b); 62(b); 80(b), (c); 81(a),(e),(f),(g).

b. State-initiated changes that are amendments that clarify and make the State's regulations internally consistent—Chapter R315-15 Standards For Management of Used Oil: R315-15-1.3 introductory paragraph, (a), (d); 1.5(a) through (b)(1); 1.6; 1.7(c) through (h); 2.1(a)(1), 2.2(b); 2.3 introductory paragraph, (b)(2) through (4); 2.4 introductory paragraph, (a) introductory paragraph, (a)(3) through (a)(5), (b); 2.5 introductory paragraph, (a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(3), (c) introductory paragraph; 3.1(a), (a)(1), (a)(2), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(2), (b)(3) introductory paragraph, (b)(3)(i) through (iv), (b)(4), (c); 3.2(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (a)(2), (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(2), (b)(3); 4.1(a) introductory paragraph; 4.4(d); 4.5(b)(2); 4.6(c) introductory paragraph, (c)(3) and (4), (d), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3) through (6); 4.7(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1), (a)(3), (b) introductory paragraph, (c) and (d); 5.3(a)(1), (a)(2) introductory paragraph, (a)(3), (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), (v) and (vi); 5.5(b) introductory paragraph, (b)(3), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3) through (5); 5.6(a)(1); 5.7(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(7), 6.1(a) introductory paragraph, (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(6) through (8), (d); 6.4(b)(2); 6.5(b), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(1) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3) and (4); 6.6(a)(7); 6.7(b); 6.8; 7.6(a) introductory paragraph, (a)(2); 8.2(b); 9.1(a)(1) through (4), (d) and (e); 9.2; 9.3; 11.3(a) introductory paragraph and (a)(1); 11.4(a); Chapter R315-124 Procedures for Decision making: R315-124-1; 3(a), (c), (d). (e), (g) introductory paragraph, (g)(4); 6(a), (d) introductory paragraph; 8(a), (b)(5), (b)(6) intro.; 10(a)(3), (b)(1), (b)(2) introductory paragraph, (c)(1) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(ix)(B) and (C), (c)(2)(ii), (d) introductory paragraph, (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii) through (v), (d)(2)(i); 12(a)(1) and (2), (b), (d); 17(a)(1) and (2); 19(a); 20; 31(b); 32(b)(2)(ii) through (iv); Chapter R315-260 Hazardous Waste Management System: R315-260-1; 3; 10(c)(165) “Universal waste” (vi); 19; Chapter R315-261 General Requirements—Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: R315-261-1(a)(2) through (4); 4(a)(8) introductory paragraph, (a)(9)(iii)(A) through (C), (a)(14)(i), (e)(1)(i), (e)(2)(i) and (ii), (g)(2)(i); 9(f); 31(a) table 2, F999 entry; Chapter R315-262 Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements: R315-262-23(c); 30; and 32(a); Chapter R315-263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste and Standards Applicable to Emergency Control of Spills for Any Hazardous Waste Handlers: R315-263-11; 20(b), (h)(2)(iii), (h)(4); 21(a)(1), (a)(2) (a)(4); 22(c) introductory paragraph, (c)(2); 30 through 33; Chapter R315-264 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: R315-264-1(g)(8)(i)(C); 11; 1314(a) introductory paragraph; 15(a) through (b)(2), (c), (d); 16(a)(3) introductory paragraph, (a)(3)(i), (d) introductory paragraph, (e); 18(a)(2) except (a)(2)(iii); 18(b)(1)(i); 31; 32 except (d); 35; 37(a)(1) and (2); 51; 52(e), (f); 53(b); 54; 56(a)(2); 56(b) through (f) except (d)(2) introductory paragraph through (d)(2)(ii); 56(d)(2)(v) and (vi); 90(b)(2) introductory paragraph; 94(a)(1), (a)(2) table; 97(g) introductory paragraph, (g)(2); 98(f)(2), (g)(6)(iii); 99(d)(2), (i)(3); 101(a); 220; 221(c)(2)(v); 226(c) introductory paragraph; 227(d)(2)(ii); 251(a)(2) introductory paragraph; 256(b); 257 except (b); 272(b), (c) introductory paragraph, (c)(2); 276 introductory paragraph, (b)(1)(ii), (f)(2), (f)(3) introductory paragraph, (g)(1) and (2), (h)(2) and (3); 281(b); 283(b); 301(a)(1) introductory paragraph, (a)(2) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii), (e)(2)(i)(A); 345(d)(3), (f); 347(a)(1), (c); Chapter R315-265 Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: R315-265-1(c)(1), (c)(11)(iv); 11; 14(a) except (a)(2); 14(b)(2)(i) and (ii); 15(a), (b)(1) and (2), (d); 16(a)(3)(iii); 32 introductory paragraph through (b); 33; 35; 51(a); 52(e), (f); 53(b); 54; 56(d) introductory paragraph, (d)(1), (d)(2)(iii) and (iv), (e) through (h) except (h)(2); 71(b) introductory paragraph, (b)(2) Comment, (b)(4) Comment, (b)(5); 92(a)(4), (a)(4) Comment; (b)(2)(vi); 94(a)(2) introductory paragraph, (b)(2); 172 and 173 except 173(a); 177(c); 221(g); 225(a)(2)(ii) Comment; 229(b) except (b)(3); 253 Comment; 256(a)(2); 257(b), 257(b) Comment; and 259(b)(2); 42(b) and (b) Note; Chapter R315-270 Hazardous Waste Permit Program: R315-270-1(c) introductory paragraph, first 2 sentences, (c)(2)(viii) introductory paragraph, (c)(4); 10(b), (d), (e)(1)(iii), (e)(3), (g) introductory paragraph, (g)(1) introductory paragraph, (g)(1)(ii), (h) introductory paragraph, (h)(1); 13 introductory paragraph and (b); 14(b)(11)(iii), (b)(19) introductory paragraph, (b)(19)(xii), (c)(8)(iv), (d)(1) intro; 17(d); 30 introductory paragraph, (b), (d), (f) through (i)(3), (l)(2)(i) and (ii)(A), (l)(5), (l)(6)(i)(B), (l)(11); 31 introductory paragraph; 32(e); 33(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), (b)(1) and (2), (b)(3)(iv); 41(a) introductory paragraph through (a)(3), (b) introductory paragraph; 43(a); 50(a); 51(a) introductory paragraph, (c) introductory paragraph and (1), (d); 62(b)(2)(ii) introductory paragraph, (b)(6)(ii)(B); 63(a)(1); 65(c); 68; 71(a)(1) through (3); 72(a)(1), (a)(3) introductory paragraph; 73(c)(1), (d)(1), (f), (g); Chapter R315-273 Standards for Universal Waste Management: R315-273-1 Note; 9(c) “Antifreeze”, (f) “Drum-top Lamp Crusher”, (l) “On-site”, (p) Universal Waste” (6); 12; 14(b)(2), (c)(2); 18(g); 32(a)(1) and (2); 34(b)(2), (c)(2); 35(c)(2); 38(g); 61(c); 80(d);

c. State-initiated changes that are revisions associated with the modification to the State's approach from an incorporation by reference format to a verbatim format—Chapter R315-260 Hazardous Waste Management System: R315-260-10(c)(1) “Above ground tank”, (c)(3) “Active life”, (c)(4) “Active portion”, (c)(10) “Approved hazardous waste management facility” through (c)(15) “Boiler”, (c)(17) “Carbon regeneration unit”, (c)(20) “Certification” through (c)(23) “Confined aquifer”, (c)(25) “Container” through (c)(28) “Corrosion expert”, (c)(34) “Destination Facility” through (c)(40) “Drip pad”, (c)(42) “Elementary neutralization unit”, (c)(45) “EPA hazardous waste number” through (c)(51) “Existing tank system” or “Existing component”, (c)(56) “Federal agency” through (c)(64) “Hazard class”, (c)(67) “Hazardous waste constituent” through (c)(79) “Installation inspector” except (c)(72)(iii), (c)(81) “International shipment”, (c)(82) “Lamp”, (c)(84) “Landfill” through (c)(86) “Land treatment facility”, (c)(88) “Leachate” through (c)(91) “Management” or “Hazardous waste management”, (c)(96) “Mining overburden returned to the mine site” through (c)(99) “Movement”, (c)(101) “New tank system”, (c)(104) “On ground tank” through (c)(114) “Person”, (c)(116) “Pesticide” through (c)(123) “Qualified ground water scientist”, (c)(124) “RCRA”, (c)(127) “Remediation waste” through (c)(135) “Sludge dryer”, (c)(137) “Solid waste management unit”, (c)(139) “Sorbent” through (c)(153) “Totally enclosed treatment facility”, (c)(155) “Transport vehicle” through (c)(165) “Universal waste” (i), (c)(166) “Universal waste handler” except (ii)(A), (c)(167) “Universal waste transporter” through (c)(169) “Uppermost aquifer”, (c)(173) “Vessel” through (c)(178) “Well injection”, (c)(180) “Zone of engineering control”; 22(a) through (e) except (a)(1), (d)(1)(i), and (d)(1)(ii); 22(h) through (l); 30(a) and (c); 31(a) through (b)(1); 32; 33(b); 40(a)(1) through (5); 41(a) and (b); Chapter R315-261 General Requirements—Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: R315-261-1(c)(1) through (3), (c)(5), (c)(7), (c)(9); 6(a)(1); 6(a)(3) except (a)(3) introductory paragraph and (a)(3)(i); (6)(a)(4), (b), (c)(2)(i) through (iii); 24(b); 31(b) introductory paragraph through (b)(3); Chapter R315-264 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: R315-264-13 except (b)(7)(iii)(B); 110; 111 except (c); 112 except (b)(8); 113 except (e)(5); 114; 117 through 119 except 118(c) and 119(b)(1)(ii); 140 except (d)(1); 141; 142 except (b)(2); 143 except (b)(7), (b)(8), (e)(5), and (i); 144; 145 except (a)(3)(i), (d)(6), and (f)(11); 146; 148; 147 except (e) and (h)(i); 151 except (b), (f), (g), (h)(2) through (m)(1), and (n)(1); 190 except (a); 191(b) through (d) except (b)(5)(ii); 192 except (a) introductory paragraph and (b) introductory paragraph; 193(c) except (c)(4); 193(e) except (e)(2(ii), (e)(2)(v)(A), (e)(2)(v)(B), (e)(3)(i), and (e)(3)(ii); 193(f) through (h) except (g)(1)(iii), (g)(1)(iv), and (g)(2)(i)(A); 193(i) except (i)(2); 194; 195(a); 196 except (f); 197 through 200; 550; 551; 552 except (a)(3)(ii) through (iv), (e)(4)(iii), (e)(4)(iv)(F), (e)(6)(iii)(E); 553 except (e) introductory paragraph; 554 except (a) introductory paragraph and (c)(2); 554 except (a) introductory paragraph and (c)(2); 555 except (a)(3) and (e)(6); 570; 571 except (a) through (c); 572; 573(a) except (a)(1), (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), and (a)(5); 573(c) through (d), (h) through (l), (m)(2), (m)(3), (n) and (o); 574 except (a); 575; 601 except (a), (b)(11), and (c)(4); 602; 603; 1030 except (b)(2) and (c); 1031 through 1033 except 1033(f)(2)(vii)(B); 1034 except (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(iv)(A), (c)(i)(iv)(B), (d)(1)(iii), and (f); 1036; 1050 except (b)(3), (f), and (h); 1051 through 1057; 1058 except (c)(1); 1059; 1060; 1061 except (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d); 1062 except (a) introductory paragraph and (b)(2); 1063 except (d)(2); 1064 except (c)(3); 1065; 1080 except (a) and (c); 1081; 1085; 1086 except (c)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(i); 1087; 1089; 1090 except (c); 1100(a) through (e); 1101(a) and (b) except (b)(3)(iii); 1101(c) except (c)(2), (c)(3) introductory paragraph, (c)(3)(i), and (c)(4); 1101(d)(1) through (3), (e); 1102(b); 1103 through 1106; Chapter R315-265 Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities: R315-265-13; 73 except (b) introductory paragraph, (b)(1), (b)(6) through (b)(8) and (b)(15); 110 except (b)(4); 111 except (c); 112 except (b)(5) and (d)(4); 113 except (b), (e)(4) and (e)(5); 114; 116; 117 except (b); 118; 119 except (b)(1)(ii); 121; 140 except (b) introductory paragraph and (b)(2); 141; 142 except (a) introductory paragraph; 143 except (h); 144; 145 except (e)(11) and (h); 146; 147 except (a)(1)(i), (b)(1)(i), and (e); 148; 190 except (a); 191 except (a) and (b)(5)(ii); 192 except (a) introductory paragraph and (b) introductory paragraph; 193 except (a)(1), (a)(2), (e)(2)(v)(A), (e)(2)(v)(B), and (i)(2); 194 except (b)(1) and (b)(2); 196 except (f); 197 except (b); 198 through 200; 202; 228 except (a)(2)(iii)(D) and (b)(2); 1030 except (b)(2) and (3); 1031 and 1032; 1033 except (f)(2)(ii); 1034 except (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv), (d)(1)(iii), and (f); 1035 except (b)(2) introductory paragraph, (b)(2)(i), and (c)(4)(i); 1080 except (a); 1081 except “Waste stabilization process”; 1082; 1083; 1084(a) except (a)(3)(ii)(C), (a)(3)(iii), (b)(3)(ii)(C), (b)(3)(iii), and (c)(3)(i); 1085 except (h)(3) introductory paragraph; 1086; 1087 except (b)(1) introductory paragraph, (c)(4)(i), and (d)(4)(i); 1088; 1089; 1090 except (f)(1); 1100 except introductory paragraph and (d); 1101(a) and (b) except (b)(3)(i)(B) and (b)(3)(iii); 1101(c) except (c)(2), (c)(3) introductory paragraph, and (c)(4); 1101(d)(1) through (e); 1102; Chapter R315-266 Standards For the Management Of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types Of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities: R315-266-20(a); 21; 70(c); 80(b)(1) and (2); 100(a); 100(b) through (c) except (b)(1), (b)(2)(iv), (b)(3) introductory paragraph through (b)(3)(iii), and (b)(4); 100(d) through (f) except (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(3)(i)(A); 100(g) except (g)introductory paragraph and (g)(2), 100(h); 101 except (c)(1) and (c)(2); 102(a) through (d) except (a)(2)(vi) and (b)(1); 102(e) except (e)(3)(i)(E), (e)(5)(i)(C), (e)(6)(ii)(B), (e)(8)(iii), and (e)(10); 103(a) through (c) except (a)(4)(vii), (b)(2)(v)(B)( 2 ), (b)(5)(ii)(A), (b)(6)(viii)(A), (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ), (c)(1)(ix) introductory paragraph, (c)(1)(ix)(A), and (c)(4)(iv)(C)( 1 ); 103(e) through (j) except (g)(1)(i); 103(l); 104; 105; 106 except (a) and (d)(1); 107; 108; 109 except (a)(2)(ii) and (b) introductory paragraph; 110; 111; 112 except (b)(1) introductory paragraph, (b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(i) Note; Chapter R315-268 Land Disposal Restrictions: R315-268-1 except (e)(1) and (f)(3) through (f)(5); 2 except (g); (3); 4 except (a)(3); (5); 6 except (c)(5); 7(a) except (a) introductory paragraph, (a)(1) introductory paragraph, (a)(2) introductory paragraph, (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4), and (a)(5) introductory paragraph; 7(b) except (b)(3)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(6); 7(c) through (e) except (c)(2) and (d) introductory paragraph through (d)(3) introductory paragraph; 9 except (a) and (d) introductory paragraph; 13; 14(a); 30; 31; 33(a) through (d); 34; 35(a) through (c); 36(a) through (c); 37 through 39; 40 except (b), (g), (i), and table; 41; 42 except (a) table; 43; 44; 45(a) through (c)(5); 46; 48(a); 49 except (d); 50(a) except (a)(1), (a)(2)(i)(A) through (D), (a)(4), and (a)(5); 50(b) through (f) except (c); 52; 53; 57; Chapter R315-270 R315-270-16 except (a); 22 except introductory paragraph and (a)(2)(ii)(B); 24 except (d)(3); 25 except (e)(3); 26 except (c)(15); 27; 42 except (d)(2)(i), (i), (j)(1) through (j)(3), (k) and appendix I; 66(a) through (c) except (c)(2)(i) and (ii); 66(d) through (g); 230.

The Utah revisions being authorized in this rule include provisions that contain purely Federal functions which are not delegable to States. The non-delegable Federal program areas include import/export requirements reserved as part of the Federal foreign relations function, and manifest registry and electronic manifest functions administered solely by the EPA. Utah has appropriately adopted these provisions by leaving the authority with the EPA for implementation and enforcement. We consider the following State requirement to be more stringent than the Federal requirement: R315-261-420(f)(4)(ii) because the State requires that notification also be given to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality as well as the Federal entities. Utah did not change any previously more stringent or broader-in-scope provisions to be equivalent to the Federal rules.

The State of Utah will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization, until Utah has equivalent instruments in place. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Utah is not yet authorized.

Utah is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian Reservations located within or abutting the State of Utah:

a. Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation

b. Paiute Indian Tribe (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)

c. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indiana

d. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian Tribe; and

3. Any other land, whether on or off a reservation, that qualifies as Indian country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.

Therefore, this program revision does not extend to Indian country where the EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program.

Codification is the process of including the statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the CFR. Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize State hazardous waste management programs. The State regulations authorized by EPA supplant the Federal regulations concerning the same matter with the result that after authorization the EPA enforces the authorized regulations. Infrequently, State statutory language which acts to regulate a matter is also authorized by the EPA with the consequence that the EPA enforces the authorized statutory provision. The EPA does not authorize State enforcement authorities and does not authorize State procedural requirements. The EPA codifies the authorized State program in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that make up the approved program, which is federally enforceable in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

The EPA incorporated by reference Utah's authorized hazardous waste program effective November 26, 2001 (66 FR 58964). In this action, the EPA is revising subpart TT of 40 CFR part 272 to include the authorization revision actions described in this document.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference of the authorized hazardous waste management program of the State of Utah. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Utah rules described in section I.G. of this document and set forth below in the amendments to § 272.2251. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov. For alternative access to docket materials, please contact the person identified in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

This action codifies EPA's authorization of Utah's base hazardous waste management program and its revisions to that program. The codification reflects the State program that is in effect at the time the EPA's authorized revisions to the Utah hazardous waste management program addressed in this direct final rule become final. This action does not reopen any decision the EPA previously made concerning the authorization of the State's hazardous waste management program. The EPA is not requesting comments on its decisions published in the Federal Register in the final rules referenced in section I.F. of this document concerning revisions to the authorized program in Utah.

The EPA is incorporating by reference the EPA's approval of Utah's hazardous waste management program by amending subpart TT to 40 CFR part 272. The action amends § 272.2251 and incorporates by reference Utah's authorized hazardous waste regulations, as amended effective April 19, 2021. Section 272.2251 also references the demonstration of adequate enforcement authority, including procedural and enforcement provisions, which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program. In addition, § 272.2251 references the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements, and the Program Description, which are evaluated as part of the approval process of the hazardous waste management program in accordance with subtitle C of RCRA.

The EPA retains the authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in all authorized States. With respect to enforcement actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than the State analogs to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference Utah's inspection and enforcement authorities, nor are those authorities part of Utah's approved State program which operates in lieu of the Federal program. 40 CFR 272.2251(c)(2) lists these authorities for informational purposes, and because the EPA also considered them in determining the adequacy of Utah's procedural and enforcement authorities. Utah's authority to inspect and enforce the State's hazardous waste management program requirements continues to operate independently under State law.

The public is reminded that some provisions of Utah's hazardous waste management program are not part of the federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:

1. Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

2. State procedural and enforcement authorities which are necessary to establish the ability of the State's program to enforce compliance but which do not supplant the Federal statutory enforcement and procedural authorities.

State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, the EPA lists in 40 CFR 272.2251(c)(3) the Utah statutory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. While “broader in scope” provisions are not part of the authorized program and cannot be enforced by the EPA, the State may enforce such provisions under State law.

With respect to any requirement(s) pursuant to HSWA for which the State has not yet been authorized, and which the EPA has identified as taking effect immediately in States with authorized hazardous waste management programs, the EPA will enforce those Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for those provisions.

The codification does not affect Federal HSWA requirements for which the State is not authorized. The EPA has authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including States with authorized hazardous waste management programs, until the States become authorized for such requirements or prohibitions, unless the EPA has identified the HSWA requirement(s) as an optional or as a less stringent requirement of the Federal program. A HSWA requirement or prohibition, unless identified by the EPA as optional or as less stringent, supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985).

Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirements implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA enforces the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes and codifies State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this action authorizes 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 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes and codifies State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.

This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant, and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because this rule authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective February 21, 2025.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority at 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b), the EPA is granting final authorization under 40 CFR part 271 to the State of Utah for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and is amending 40 CFR part 272 as follows:

HHS/ACF recently published notice of its establishment of a new system of records 09-80-0323, “ORR Unaccompanied Children Bureau (UCB) Child Abuse or Neglect Investigation Records and Central Registry,” in the Federal Register ; see 89 FR 96250 (Dec. 4, 2024). The purpose of this rulemaking is to exempt that system of records from certain requirements of the Privacy Act as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). The new system of records will consist of investigatory material compiled and maintained by the UCB about reports and investigations of child abuse and neglect, allegations at ORR care provider facilities located in States that will not investigate such reports, as well as at ORR Emergency or Influx Facilities. It will include a Central Registry of ORR care provider facility staff and volunteers determined by ORR, pursuant to ORR regulations and policies, to have a sustained allegation of child abuse or neglect of a child while the child was in ORR custody. The Central Registry will be used to vet prospective candidates to ensure that individuals on the registry are not permitted to work on ORR grants or contracts or have access to unaccompanied children at ORR care provider facilities.

New system of records 09-80-0323 will include both criminal and non-criminal ( e.g., civil, administrative, regulatory) investigatory records of reports of child abuse and neglect allegations at ORR care provider facilities located in States that will not investigate such reports, as well as at ORR Emergency or Influx Facilities, which will be retrieved by subject individuals' personal identifiers. Such records are eligible for exemptions based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), permitting investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes to be exempted from sections (c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act, which require the agency to provide an accounting of disclosures; provide notification, access, and amendment rights to record subjects; maintain only relevant and necessary information to accomplish a purpose of the agency; establish and describe procedures whereby an individual can be notified if a system of records contains information pertaining to that individual and how to gain access to pertinent records; identify categories of record sources; and promulgate rules regarding these procedures. This exemption is available under the circumstances described here even though ORR is not a law enforcement agency. The effect of the access exemption on a subject individual's access rights will be limited as required by subsection (k)(2): If, as a result of the maintenance of the investigative records, an individual is denied any right, benefit, or privilege to or for which the individual would otherwise be entitled or eligible by Federal law, ACF will disclose the record to the individual, except to the extent that the disclosure would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.

Notwithstanding the establishment of these exemptions, individual record subjects may submit accounting, access, notification, and correction requests, and HHS/ACF will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis. Only information that is not factually accurate, or is not relevant, timely, or complete may be contested.

In addition to the exemptions that HHS/ACF is establishing for system of records 09-80-0323 in this direct final rule, if any investigatory material compiled in that system of records is from another system of records in which such material was exempted from the Privacy Act based on 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), HHS/ACF will claim the same exemptions in system of records 09-80-0323 on the same basis ( i.e., 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2)) and from the same requirements as in the source system of records from which they originated.

The exemptions are necessary and appropriate to prevent interference with and ensure the integrity of pending, closed, future, and related investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect, protect the identity of children and confidential sources involved in the investigations, and prevent disclosure of investigative techniques. The following specific rationales explain why each exemption is necessary and appropriate for the records in system of records 09-80-0323. All subsections referenced are subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a.

• Subsection (c)(3) (Provide Accountings of Disclosures). Providing an accounting of disclosures to an individual record subject could reveal the existence of a pending or prior investigation or present or past investigative interest on the part of the UCB or another agency. This would pose a serious impediment to and undermine the investigative process by enabling a subject individual or others in concert with that individual to harass, intimidate, or collude with witnesses, destroy, conceal, or tamper with evidence, threaten or endanger investigative personnel, alter patterns of behavior, and avoid detection or apprehension by investigative authorities, which would undermine the investigative process.

• Subsection (d)(1) through (4) (Notification, Access and Amendment Rights). Providing subject individuals with notification, access, and amendment rights to records in the system of records could reveal the existence of a pending or prior investigation or present or past investigative interest by the UCB or another agency and details about the investigation, including identities and personal information of children involved in the investigation, of sources of information, personal information about third parties, and sensitive investigative techniques, which could hinder or impede pending and future investigations by chilling or deterring sources of information from providing information to investigators (particularly if they are not certain of its accuracy or if they fear retribution), by providing an opportunity for subject individuals and others acting in concert with subject individuals to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and by allowing individuals to alter their behavior to defeat investigative techniques and avoid detection or apprehension. Complying with amendment requirements could significantly delay investigations while attempts are made to resolve questions of accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated.

• Subsection (e)(1) (Maintain Only Relevant and Necessary Information Authorized by Statute or Executive Order). In the course of an investigation, and especially in the early stages of an investigation, the relevance and necessity of information obtained or introduced may be unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation but may lead to discovery of relevant information. In the interests of effective enforcement of ORR requirements, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

• Subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) and (f) (Describe Procedures for Notification, Access, and Amendment). Because system of records 09-80-0323 will be exempt from request requirements in subsection (d)(1) through (4) (Provide Notification, Access, and Amendment Rights) and HHS/ACF's compliance with those request requirements will therefore be discretionary, it is appropriate that HHS/ACF's compliance with the requirements in subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H) and (f) to provide request procedures be discretionary also. Notwithstanding these exemptions, HHS/ACF has included request procedures in the SORN for system of records 09-80-0323 because, notwithstanding the exemptions, individual record subjects may submit access and amendment requests, and HHS/ACF will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

• Subsection (e)(4)(I) (Identify Categories of Record Sources in the SORN). Because the information in these records may come from any source, it is not possible to know every category in advance in order to include them all in the SORN. Further, some record source categories would not be appropriate to publish in the SORN if, for example, revealing them could thwart or impede pending and future investigations by enabling record subjects or other individuals to discover sensitive investigative techniques and devise ways to bypass or defeat them to evade detection and apprehension.

• Subsection (f) (Agency Rules). As noted above, establishing procedures to notify record subject individuals, to review requests from individuals, and to disclose records to subject individuals could reveal the existence of an investigation or an investigative interest by the UCB or another agency and details about the investigation and sensitive investigative techniques, which could hinder or impede pending and future investigations by chilling or deterring sources of information from providing information to investigators (particularly if they are not certain of its accuracy or fear retribution), by providing an opportunity for subject individuals and others acting in concert with subject individuals to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and by allowing individuals to alter their behavior to defeat investigative techniques and avoid detection or apprehension. Notwithstanding the exemptions, individual record subjects may submit access and amendment requests, and HHS/ACF will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, HHS/ACF believes that the exemptions authorized in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) are essential to system of records 09-80-0323.

Accordingly, HHS exempts both criminal and non-criminal investigatory material in system of records 09-80-0323, “ORR Unaccompanied Children Bureau (UCB) Child Abuse or Neglect Investigation Records and Central Registry,” from the requirements in subsections (c)(3), (d)(1) through (4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

The agency believes that this direct final rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review; E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review; or E.O. 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review, because it will not (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more; 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, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact 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 these Executive orders. This direct final rule renders certain Privacy Act requirements inapplicable to certain records (in this case, investigatory records) in accordance with criteria established in the Privacy Act based on a showing that agency compliance with those requirements with respect to those records would harm the effectiveness or integrity of the agency function or process for which the records are maintained (in this case, investigations). However, the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this regulation under its Privacy Act oversight authority.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the direct final rule concerns records about individuals, it imposes no duties or obligations on small entities; the agency therefore certifies that the direct final 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 that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current inflation-adjusted statutory threshold is approximately $183 million based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. The agency does not expect that this direct final rule will result in any one-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This direct final rule will not have any direct effects 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. Therefore, no federalism assessment is required.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends its Privacy Act Regulations, 45 CFR part 5b, as follows:

On February 2, 2023, we published in the Federal Register (88 FR 7134) a direct final rule to make technical corrections to 62 wildlife and plant species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at §§ 17.11 and 17.12, respectively. One of these species was the Hawaiian hoary bat. We planned to update its scientific name to Aeorestes semotus and add the common name `ōpe`ape`a to its listing.

On April 24, 2023, based on comments we received on the February 2, 2023, direct final rule relating to scientific research relevant to the Hawaiian hoary bat's taxonomic classification, we published a document in the Federal Register (88 FR 24712) withdrawing the amendment in the direct final rule for the Hawaiian hoary bat only.

In 2024, during an internal Service review, we erroneously identified the Hawaiian hoary bat listing in the February 2, 2023, direct final rule as an amendment that had not been properly codified in the Code of Federal Regulations. We requested that the Office of the Federal Register publish a correction to update the listing of the Hawaiian hoary bat as it appeared in the February 2, 2023, direct final rule. The Office of the Federal Register's correction published on September 17, 2024, at 89 FR 75976.

Since that time, we discovered our error, and we are correcting it in this document by restoring the listing of the Hawaiian hoary bat to its original scientific name and omitting the common name we included in the February 2, 2023, direct final rule.

Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this action on November 26, 2024. Acting Director Steve Guertin approved these packages December 15, 2024. On December 16, 2024, the acting Director authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102.

The commercial quota for summer flounder for 2024 was set equal to 8,789,830 pounds (lb; 3,987,000 kilograms (kg)) (88 FR 88266, December 23, 2023). The amount allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in New York is 672,157 lb (304,885 kg).

The NMFS Regional Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region monitors the state commercial landings and determines when a state's commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the Federal Register advising and notifying commercial vessels and dealer permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the state's commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in that state. Based on dealer reports and other available information, the Regional Administrator has determined that the available quota has been harvested. The Marine Resources Division of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is closing the state fishery on December 21, 2024, and this action promotes consistency between the state and Federal management measures.

The regulations at 50 CFR 648.14(n) prohibit federally permitted vessels from landing summer flounder for sale in a state, and prohibit all persons from purchasing or otherwise receiving summer flounder for a commercial purpose after the effective date published in the Federal Register notification that commercial quota is no longer available in that state. Therefore, effective 0001 hours on December 21, 2024, landings of summer flounder in New York by vessels holding Federal summer flounder commercial fishery permits are prohibited for the remainder of the 2024 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the Federal Register . Effective 0001 hours on December 21, 2024, federally permitted dealers are also notified that they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in New York for the remainder of the calendar year, or until additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action closes the commercial summer flounder fishery for New York until January 1, 2025, under current regulations. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.103(b) require such action to ensure that summer flounder vessels do not exceed quotas allocated to the states. If implementation of this closure was delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this fishing year will be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The Assistant Administrator further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reason stated above.