This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

8253 

Vol. 90, No. 17 

Tuesday, January 28, 2025 

1The Tennessee Walking Horse National 

Celebration Association, et al. v. United States 

Department of Agriculture, et al., 2:24–cv–00143 

(N.D. Tex.). 2We do not, through this action, postpone the 

effective date of § 11.19 because, as courts have 

held, ‘‘[5 U.S.C. ] 705 permits an agency to 

‘postpone the effective date’ of a rule that has not 

yet taken effect, but does not permit an agency to 

suspend, without notice and comment, a rule that 

is already in effect.’’ Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. 

Regan, 691 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2023) 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 11 

[Docket No. APHIS–2022–0004] 

RIN 0579–AE70 

Horse Protection Amendments; 

Postponement of Regulations 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule; postponement of 

regulations. 

SUMMARY: On May 8, 2024, we 

published a final rule amending the 

horse protection regulations to provide, 

among other provisions, that the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service will 

screen, train, and authorize qualified 

persons for appointment by the 

management of any horse show, horse 

exhibition, or horse sale or auction to 

detect and diagnose soring at such 

events for the purposes of enforcing the 

Horse Protection Act. With the 

exception of § 11.19, which went into 

effect on June 7, 2024, the remainder of 

the rule was scheduled to go into effect 

on February 1, 2025. In this document, 

we are issuing a temporary 

postponement of the effective date of 

those regulations for 60 days, from 

February 1, 2025 to April 2, 2025. 

DATES: The effective date of 9 CFR 11.1 

through 11.18, published at 89 FR 

39194–39251, May 8, 2024, is delayed 

until April 2, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Sarah Helming, Deputy Administrator, 

Animal Care, 4700 River Road, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234; (970) 494– 

7478; sarah.j.helming@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 8, 

2024, we published a final rule (89 FR 

39194–39251) (‘‘the rule’’) amending the 

horse protection regulations to provide, 

among other provisions, that the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(‘‘APHIS’’) will screen, train, and 

authorize qualified persons for 

appointment by the management of any 

horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 

sale or auction to detect and diagnose 

soring at such events for the purposes of 

enforcing the Horse Protection Act. 

With the exception of § 11.19 of the rule 

(‘‘Authorization and training of Horse 

Protection Inspectors’’) which went into 

effect on June 7, 2024, the remainder of 

the rule was scheduled to go into effect 

on February 1, 2025. 

On July 1, 2024, a complaint was filed 

in the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas and amended 

on September 23, 2024.1 The amended 

complaint alleges, in part, that the rule 

exceeds APHIS’s statutory authority, 

would have a significant economic 

impact on the Tennessee Walking Horse 

industry altogether, and requests 

vacatur of the rule. The parties 

completed briefing on their crossmotions for summary judgment on 

December 20, 2024. The parties have 

notified the court of the rule’s February 

1, 2025 effective date, and are currently 

awaiting a decision on the merits from 

the court. 

Under Section 705 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, ‘‘[w]hen 

an agency finds that justice so requires, 

it may postpone the effective date of 

action taken by it, pending judicial 

review.’’ 5 U.S.C. 705. In light of the 

pending litigation, and for the following 

reasons, APHIS has determined that 

justice requires postponement of the 

effective date of the remainder of the 

rule—i.e., all provisions except for 

§ 11.19—for 60 days, to April 2, 2025.2

The postponement will temporarily 

preserve the regulatory status quo while 

the litigation is pending. The plaintiffs 

have raised serious questions 

concerning the validity of certain 

provisions of the rule, including the 

prohibitions of action devices and 

substances, and the provision on 

dermatological conditions indicative of 

soring. Specifically, plaintiffs allege 

that: APHIS’s data supporting the rule is 

unreliable because it overstates the rate 

of soring violations in Tennessee 

Walking Horses; APHIS’s ban on action 

devices, pads and substances exceeds its 

statutory authority because those items, 

by themselves, do not cause soring; 

APHIS’s ‘‘dermatologic conditions 

indicative of soring’’ provision is 

unconstitutionally vague and will 

permit arbitrary disqualifications; 

APHIS’s inspection process does not 

provide owners and trainers due process 

in that there is no mechanism for a predeprivation review of either a pre- or 

post-show disqualification; APHIS’s 

abolition of Designated Qualified 

Persons is unsupported by the evidence 

before the Agency, is contrary to the 

statutory intent of having the industry 

work with APHIS to police itself, and 

arbitrarily limits the ability of 

professional horse trainers or farriers to 

participate; APHIS’s economic analysis 

is deficient in that it relies on outdated 

data and inadequately addresses the 

rule’s impact on industry and the larger 

U.S. economy; and APHIS failed to 

comply with the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, in that it did not address the rule’s 

significant impact on small entities. 

The Tennessee Walking Horse 

industry also contends that the rule’s 

ban on action devices and pads will 

eliminate the Performance division of 

competition. A comment on the 

proposed rule suggested that 

Performance division Tennessee 

Walking Horses have been specifically 

bred and trained to compete with action 

devices and pads and cannot simply be 

retrained to compete as a flat-shod 

horse; however, no comment included 

specific evidence that Performance 

division horses trained to perform with 

the use of pads and action devices 

cannot perform well without them. A 

postponement at this time will 

temporarily delay the potential loss in 

value of horses that horse owners allege 

will occur when the rule’s ban on action 

devices and pads is implemented. 

Although APHIS opposed plaintiffs’ 

legal arguments in summary judgment 

briefing, and does not through this 

action concede that its own arguments 

lack merit or are unreasonable, plaintiffs 

raise significant legal challenges, and 

there is much uncertainty as to how the 

Court will decide. In addition, the 

competition season for regulated 

Tennessee Walking Horses runs from 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
8254 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 28, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

February to November annually, and the 

industry will benefit from extension of 

the status quo, which will reduce the 

risk of shifting legal regimes and lack of 

clarity in the event the rule goes into 

effect and is later modified or altered by 

court order. 

If the court were to vacate, enjoin or 

modify the rule shortly before or after it 

otherwise would become effective, there 

would be costs associated with reverting 

back to the previous regulatory regime 

on short notice. It will be disruptive for 

the industry to change the structure of 

its shows and the list of prohibitions in 

the event of a shifting regulatory change, 

e.g., if the court decides in favor of 

plaintiffs in any material respect. It may 

also be disruptive to horse owners and 

trainers who do not know whether to 

sell, relinquish, or re-train their horses 

to compete in the flat-shod division 

while the litigation is pending. A 

postponement will preserve the existing 

status quo—a legal and regulatory 

regime that has applied for years prior 

to the effective date—and eliminate 

uncertainty for the duration of the 

postponement, providing predictability 

to the regulated industry for at least the 

beginning of the 2025 show season, 

which starts on or about February 28, 

2025. 

Given this legal uncertainty and the 

significant issues raised in the litigation, 

maintaining the status quo will avoid 

harm to the regulated industry, 

including plaintiffs and similarly 

situated stakeholders. Setting aside 

plaintiffs’ legal challenges to the rule, 

we also note that other stakeholders 

have requested a postponement of the 

effective date for related reasons arising 

from the impending show season and a 

lack of clarity as to how the rule will 

operate: For example, one stakeholder 

group has conveyed to the Agency that 

proceeding forward with the original 

implementation date will undermine 

confidence in the Agency, the rule, and 

the ability to enforce the rule in a fair 

and transparent manner. Among other 

concerns, the stakeholder cited 

significant confusion within the 

industry about the rule, and has 

received numerous questions and 

concerns on a daily basis. There are also 

questions regarding Agency resources 

and whether personnel and funding are 

sufficient to implement the new rule. In 

light of this lack of clarity, the 

stakeholder requested that the Agency 

consider a postponement of the effective 

date of the rule, in order to afford it an 

opportunity to work collaboratively 

with APHIS to ensure that the rule 

achieves its intended purpose. 

Like the harm to the industry of not 

issuing a postponement, as discussed 

above, there are significant costs to the 

Agency associated with a change in 

regulatory regimes (i.e., if the rule is 

enjoined), such as investments in 

training of personnel, resources required 

to conduct stakeholder outreach, and 

potentially disruptions to administrative 

enforcement actions. A sixty-day delay 

will provide the Agency additional time 

to assess the impact of any decision and 

respond accordingly. 

The Agency has considered the public 

interest in furthering the humane 

treatment of horses and the effect to the 

regulated industry and APHIS, as 

described above. Considering the harms 

associated with regulatory uncertainty 

against the limited duration of the 

postponement of the rule, APHIS has 

determined that the balance of harms 

weighs in favor of a 60-day 

postponement. In accordance with law, 

this postponement is made without a 

notice-and-comment period. Notice and 

comment is not required when an 

agency delays the effective date of a rule 

under section 705 of the APA because 

such a stay is not substantive 

rulemaking; it merely maintains the 

status quo to allow for judicial review. 

See Bauer v. DeVos, 325 F. Supp. 3d 74, 

106–07 (D.D.C. 2018); Sierra Club v. 

Jackson, 833 F. Supp. 2d 11, 28 (D.D.C. 

2012). 

This postponement likewise is in 

accordance with the Presidential 

Memorandum titled ‘‘Regulatory Freeze 

Pending Review’’ issued January 20, 

2025, which orders all agencies to 

consider postponing for 60 days the 

effective date of any rule that has not 

taken effect, for the purpose of 

reviewing any question of fact, law or 

policy that the rule raises. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 705; 15 U.S.C. 1823– 

1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

January 2025. 

Bruce Summers, 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2025–01836 Filed 1–24–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 81, and 751 

[FRL–12583–01–OA] 

Delay of Effective Date for 4 Final 

Regulations Published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Between November 29, 2024, and 

December 31, 2024 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

dates. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

memorandum of January 20, 2025, from 

President Donald J. Trump, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,’’ 

this action temporarily delays until 

March 21, 2025, the effective date of the 

regulations listed in the table below. 

EPA has initially identified 4 

regulations that meet the criteria in the 

memo and may identify additional 

regulations in subsequent notices. 

DATES: As of January 28, 2025, the 

effective date of the rules published at 

89 FR 102568 (12/17/2024), 89 FR 

95034 (11/29/2024), 89 FR 106357 (12/ 

30/2024), and 89 FR 107012 (12/31/ 

2024), are delayed to a new effective 

date of March 21, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Nickerson, Director, Office of 

Regulatory Policy and Management, 

Office of Policy, Mail code 1804, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460; (202) 566–0326; 

nickerson.william@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is 

taking this action in response to the 

memorandum of January 20, 2025, from 

the President, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Freeze Pending Review.’’ The 

memorandum directed the heads of 

Executive Departments and Agencies to 

consider postponing for sixty days from 

the date of the memorandum the 

effective date for any rules that have 

been published in the Federal Register 

but had not yet taken effect for the 

purpose of reviewing any questions of 

fact, law, and policy that the rules may 

raise. EPA is delaying the effective dates 

for the 4 regulations listed in the table 

below. The new effective date for these 

regulations is March 21, 2025. 

The EPA is taking this action, without 

opportunity for public comment and 

effective immediately, based on the 

good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking 

public comment is impracticable, 

unnecessary and contrary to the public 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1