The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register , (86 FR 15134, March 22, 2021), proposing to exempt portions of the system of records titled, “DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. The DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records system of records notice was published concurrently in the Federal Register , (86 FR 15246, March 22, 2021), and comments were invited on both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of Records Notice (SORN).

DHS received four comments on the NPRM, two of which also referenced the SORN.

All comments related to the NPRM state that exempting the SORN from portions of the Privacy Act will restrict the public's ability to demand transparency regarding ICE analytical systems.

The first concern commenters presented was that ICE's claiming of Privacy Act exemptions create a lack of transparency in ICE operations and the analytical systems themselves, stating: “[t]he American public has the right to know how our tax dollars are being spent and if their tax dollars are being spent wisely and ethically in regards to immigrants” and “[e]xemptions under the Privacy Act will not just protect DHS' system of records but also the data, software, and systems owned by private companies, perpetuating further a lack of transparency in deportations and other investigations under the guise of `national security.' ”

As discussed in the SORN and below, individuals about whom ICE maintains information in its records systems may still submit a Privacy Act amendment request or a request for access to information. While ICE has exempted this system of records from the access and amendment provisions of the Privacy Act, it will still consider these requests on a case-by-case basis to ensure that agency data is complete, accurate, and current.

Further, to provide the greatest access to information, ICE considers individuals' requests under both the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). To this end, the public can seek records described in the Analytical Records SORN under FOIA. In contrast to the broad scope of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act is narrowly focused on individuals' personal information maintained in agency systems of records. As stated in the comment, the Privacy Act is meant to “. . . ensure accuracy of and individuals' access to information that agencies gather about them.” FOIA's broad scope allows the public access to governmental information generally. This includes information on data, systems, and connections within the agency. Subsections (t)(1) and (t)(2) of the Privacy Act prohibit agencies not only from restricting an individual's access to his/her record under FOIA based solely on claimed Privacy Act exemptions, but also from withholding records under the Privacy Act based on FOIA exemptions. Information about filing a FOIA request with ICE is available at www.ice.gov/foia.

The publication process for the Analytical Records SORN as required by the Privacy Act promotes the accountability, responsibility, legislative oversight, and open government requested by commenters. Subsection (r) of the Privacy Act requires agencies, when establishing or significantly modifying a system of records, to provide adequate advance notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate. This advance notice is separate from the public comment period ICE is engaging in here. The advanced notice that ICE provided to OMB and the committees of jurisdiction in Congress allows each body to make an evaluation of the probable or potential effects of ICE's proposal on the privacy or other rights of individuals.

Finally, in addition to the publication of SORNs here in the Federal Register , ICE also provides transparency into its systems through the publication of Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA). PIAs are conducted in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347) by ICE Privacy personnel, are reviewed by the DHS Privacy Office, and signed by the DHS Chief Privacy Officer. PIAs describe how ICE information technology systems work, what information they collect, how ICE uses that information, any external parties with whom the information is shared, and the privacy risks and corresponding mitigations employed by ICE. ICE and all DHS PIAs are published on the DHS website, www.dhs.gov/privacy.

The second concern raised by commenters is the perceived inability for an individual to access ICE records about him/her due to the exemptions claimed in this rule. Commenters state “[e]xemptions intended to prevent the subject of an investigation from being aware of the investigation undermine the presumption of innocence enjoyed by individuals in the United States by proposing that individuals being investigated should be denied rights . . .” and that they “. . . take exception to the fact that the DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access.” The commenters' concern is amplified as the exemptions may not just apply to individuals under investigation, but their associates and family members as well.

As recognized in the comments, DHS is exempting this system as law enforcement sensitive to ensure that information and records produced in response to Privacy Act requests are not used to disrupt or frustrate ICE investigations. As stated in the accompanying SORN, “DHS/ICE will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released.” ICE will consider all Privacy Act requests, whether access or amendment requests, on a case-by-case basis. As such, ICE has established access requirements, rules, and procedures outlined in the SORN accompanying this rule. The Privacy Act exemptions claimed here in no way alter or abrogate an individual's due process and fair trial rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The comments filed in response to the proposed rule also raised objections regarding the DHS/ICE-018 Analytical Records SORN. Two objections are outside the scope of this rulemaking and so will not be addressed here. One objection from a commenter is that the SORN does not examine ICE's relationship with a private software vendor. ICE will not respond to this objection as a final rule is not the proper forum to discuss ICE contractual relationships. Additionally, ICE will not examine U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) biometrics NPRM, as requested by a commenter, as that proposed rule has been withdrawn (86 FR 24750, May 10, 2021).

The comments ICE received on the SORN were focused on four distinct areas of concern: (1) The SORN expands ICE's existing authority and ability to collect records on individuals; (2) The SORN lacks transparency, in that the SORN did not address issues important to the commenters; (3) ICE analytical systems use artificial intelligence and machine learning, with specific concern that these analytical systems will be used for “predictive policing” or “constant and ongoing surveillance of immigrants and citizens;” and, (4) The SORN's routine uses are so overly broad that “they provide no limit on permissible sharing.”

A commenter expressed concern that the Analytical Records SORN was “expanding the sources from which data is gathered as well as the categories of individuals covered and records included and allows use of algorithmic processes.” ICE did not intend the SORN to be understood as solely a consolidation of two previously published SORNs. Rather, as stated in the background section of the SORN, ICE is establishing a new system of records that clarifies and more accurately reflects the nature of records ICE collects, maintains, processes, and shares in large analytical data environments.

The purpose for ICE's publication of the Analytical Records SORN is to give the public notice of the types of records ICE maintains in support of analytical and algorithmic processes. Information derived from the ICE Tip Line and trade data, previously covered by the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-Search and Analysis (FALCON-SA) SORN and DHS/ICE-005 Trade Transparency and Research (TTAR) SORN, respectively, are now covered under the Analytical Records SORN. Beyond those two categories of information, the Analytical Records SORN does not provide stand-alone coverage for any other ICE collection efforts. As stated in the SORN, ICE analytical systems ingest data collected through other efforts and authorities and covered by other SORNs. Differences in the categories of individuals or records described in the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA SORN and DHS/ICE-005 TTAR SORN and those described in the Analytical Records SORN are reflective of these other ingestions.

The SORNs covering the ingested information restrict ICE's use of that information to what is compatible with the original purpose of the collection. Technological advancements allow ICE to institute protections at the record level that follow the data as it passes from the originating systems into ICE analytical systems. As such, the initial protections and restrictions on the use and sharing of the ingested information as described in those originating SORNs are retained by ICE as a record is ingested into its analytical systems. To reiterate an example given in the SORN, data available through an ingest from ICE's Investigative Case Management System (ICM) would be covered by the DHS/ICE-009 External Investigations SORN (85 FR 74362, November 20, 2020) and each record stored from that ingest is tagged as belonging to that system of record. An analytical system may filter, search, graph, or link that data with other datasets, but only for a purpose described in DHS/ICE-009, such as generating leads for investigations. If ICE personnel wish to share an analytical product from an ICE analysis system with a third party, the tags of the underlying data, and its accompanying restrictions, must similarly be respected. Therefore, ICE analytical systems covered by the Analytical Records SORN do not expand ICE collections, use, or sharing of personal data.

The commenters maintain that the Analytical Records SORN does not describe the access controls and auditing mechanisms within ICE's analytical systems in sufficient granularity. They also raise objections that the SORN does not discuss different analytical systems, such as ICE's FALCON-SA system and ICE's “complex network of interlocking systems” including ICE's connections to DHS's Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology system (HART).

The publication of the Analytical Records SORN is an effort to provide broader transparency of the ICE analytical environment so that ICE does not continue to rely on disparate and segregated notices from previously-published SORNs. The Analytical Records SORN reflects the realities of cloud computing and modern technological processes, where access and control are derived from user privileges rather than the physical location of data. As stated in the SORN, ICE's analytical processes may span multiple information technology systems within the ICE domain and records may be derived from multiple collection points. Moreover, the purpose of a SORN is to provide notice to the public regarding personally identifiable information maintained by an agency; it is not meant to outline or provide a full description of the technical capabilities and nuances of an IT system. Granular detail of system connections, algorithmic processes, access controls, and auditing functions can be found in the applicable system's PIA, which can be found at www.dhs.gov/privacy. All PIAs link to their associated SORN(s), providing clear notice as to which systems are covered under the Analytical Records SORN.

Several commenters expressed concern with ICE's use of advanced analytics and artificial intelligence to engage in controversial policing tactics. The first tactic, “predictive policing,” is the practice of using statistics and analysis to forecast crime or identify where crime may occur in the near future. 1 Certain state or local police departments have used these methods to determine where to deploy resources or to identify those who are likely to commit crimes in the future by examining past behaviors.

The Analytical Records SORN does not support predictive policing. The SORN lists the purposes of the collection, use, and sharing of information in ICE analytical systems. The purposes of the systems are to identify current violations of law and regulation or generate leads for ongoing investigations. There is no purpose stated in the SORN that allows for its systems to engage in future state risk modelling.

Commenters expressed concern with a second controversial policing tactic, “ongoing and constant surveillance of immigrants and citizens.” This is similarly not supported by the Analytical Records SORN. As stated in the SORN and above, the Analytical Records SORN does not expand ICE collections of personal data. ICE analytical systems ingest data that has already been collected through other efforts and authorities. The restrictions on use of that data are listed in the SORN relevant to that collection and are transferred to the ICE analytical systems for linkage and further analysis. ICE analytical systems are meant to process data that has already been collected in a more efficient manner using advanced analytics and modern processing techniques. They are not used to monitor or surveil the public.

Finally, a commenter objected that the routine uses listed in the Analytical Records SORN are “so expansive . . . they provide no limit on permissible sharing.” The commenter, unfortunately, has not articulated any specific routine use that is inconsistent with the Privacy Act or ICE's statutory authorities for ICE to address. Generally, however, any routine use listed in the SORN must be compatible with the purpose of the system of records, as stated in the SORN, the purpose for which ICE originally collected the information, and ICE's statutory mission. Each routine use is analyzed and vetted for compatibility by ICE and DHS. As the Analytical Records SORN consolidates two previous ICE SORNs, the vast majority of routine uses in the new Analytical Records SORN are the same as the routine uses listed in those previously published SORNs. This means that the Analytical Records SORN routine uses were examined on multiple occasions by government oversight bodies that determined they were neither overly broad nor outside the stated purpose of the system of records.

As described in the SORN, if data is ingested from another system of records, the ICE analytical system, through record tagging and controls, ensures any subsequent sharing is compatible with the original SORN's purposes. This provides additional safeguards in the flow of information and limits the permissible sharing of data.

After consideration of public comments, the Department will implement the rulemaking as proposed.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Executive Orders (E.O.) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived review of this action.

This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

Section 11 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2910) provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion organized and operated under the laws of the U.S. or any State. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on: (1) Policies that have tribal implication, including regulation, legislative comments, or proposed legislation; and (2) other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

AMS has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under E.O. 13175. AMS hosts a quarterly teleconference with tribal leaders where matters of mutual interest regarding the marketing of agricultural products are discussed. Information about the proposed regulation has been shared during a quarterly call, and tribal leaders were informed about the proposed regulation and the opportunity to submit comments. AMS will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided as needed with regards to the regulations.

In accordance with OMB regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the Order and accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093.

The Board was initially appointed on July 11, 1991, pursuant to the provisions of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311), and the Order (7 CFR part 1220) issued thereunder. The Order established an initial Board with 60 members, composed of soybean producers. For purposes of establishing the Board, the United States was divided into 31 States and geographical units. Representation on the Board from each unit was determined by the level of production in each unit.

Section 1220.201(c) of the Order provides that at the end of each 3-year period, the Board shall review soybean production levels in the geographic units throughout the United States. Section 1220.130 of the Order defines a unit as each State, or group of States, which is represented on the Board. The Board may recommend to the Secretary modification in the levels of production necessary for Board membership for each unit.

Section 1220.201(d) of the Order provides that at the end of each 3-year period, the Secretary must review the volume of production of each unit and adjust the boundaries of any unit and the number of Board members from each such unit as necessary to conform with the criteria set forth in § 1220.201(e): (1) To the extent practicable, States with annual average soybean production of less than 3 million bushels shall be grouped into geographically contiguous units, each of which has a combined production level equal to or greater than 3 million bushels, and each such group shall be entitled to at least one member on the Board; (2) units with at least 3 million bushels, but fewer than 15 million bushels shall be entitled to one board member; (3) units with 15 million bushels or more but fewer than 70 million bushels shall be entitled to two Board members; (4) units with 70 million bushels or more but fewer than 200 million bushels shall be entitled to three Board members; and (5) units with 200 million bushels or more shall be entitled to four Board members.

The Board was last reapportioned in 2018. The total Board membership increased from 73 to 78 members, with Alabama, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee each gaining one additional member. The final rule was published in the Federal Register (83 FR 53365) on October 23, 2018. This change was effective with the 2019 appointments.

This final rule decreases total membership on the Board from 78 to 77, without affecting the overall number of states and regions. Thus, this change will not affect the number of geographical units.

This final rule adjusts representation on the Board as follows:

Board adjustments by this rulemaking will take effect with the Secretary's 2022 appointment process.

This final rule also corrects the number of States and units to the Order. During a previous reapportionment, the final rule did not account for the change in the number of States and units, as New Jersey production levels met the threshold to separate from the Eastern Region. Due to that oversight, AMS is making the correction. Technical corrections to the regulations adjust the number of States and units from 30 to 31.

A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (86 FR 19788) on April 15, 2021, with a 60-day comment period. USDA received 10 comments. The comments communicated displeasure for Alabama's decreased number from two seats to one seat. The commenters contend that due to Alabama's lower production levels, compared to the Midwest, the producers do not have as much of a voice for their state and region. Given the Southeast's different climate, soil, and production factors, the commenters feel a second seat would give them stronger representation to help with issues that are specific to Alabama and the Southeast. Leaving the Alabama seat at two would not be consistent with the Act and Order, which requires that at the end of each 3-year period, the Secretary review the volume of production of each unit and adjust the boundaries of any unit and the number of Board members from each such unit as necessary to conform with the formula to determine the number of directors for each unit set forth in § 1220.201(e). This was done by calculating production data for years 2015-2019 (excluding the crops in years in which production was the highest and in which production was the lowest in each State) as reported by the USDA NASS, resulting in a 3-year average for Alabama that fell below the required amount of bushels to retain two seats under the Order (§ 1220.201(e)(2)). Accordingly, no change is made as a result of these comments.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and determined that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened.

Effective November 20, 2019, the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.201] published an interim final rule (84 FR 64013) that adjusts the monetary-based size standards for inflation. As a result of this rule, the size classification for soybean producers changed from sales of $750,000 or less to sales of $1,000,000 or less. There are an estimated 515,008 soybean producers and an estimated 10,000 first purchasers who collect the assessment, most of whom would be considered small businesses under the criteria established by SBA.

According to USDA's NASS 2017 Census of Agriculture, the number of operations in the United States with soybean production totaled 303,191. 1 The most recent (2017) Census of Agriculture data show that roughly 2 percent of producers with soybean production, or 35,852 operations, have annual receipts of $1,000,000 or more. 2

The final rule imposes no new burden on the industry, as it only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in soybean production. This adjustment is required by the Order and results in a decrease in Board membership from 78 to 77. AMS is committed to complying with E-Government Act of 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 1220 is amended as follows:

On December 20, 2019, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA 2020), Public Law 116-92, 133 Stat. 1198, was signed into law. Section 876 of NDAA 2020 amended section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. This provision made changes to the treatment of surviving spouses with regard to the program's ownership requirements. The changes require that SBA update its regulations to reflect two new time periods. Specifically, the statute creates a ten-year time period to remain eligible in the case of a surviving spouse of a veteran with a service-connected disability rated as 100 percent disabling or who dies as a result of a service-connected disability, and a three-year time period in the case of a surviving spouse of a veteran with a service-connected disability rated as less than 100 percent disabling who does not die as a result of a service-connected disability. This rule updates 13 CFR 125.12 to reflect these changes. SBA is changing the language in § 125.12(i)(1)(ii) to match the new statutory language. SBA is adding the ten-year time frame in § 125.12(i)(2)(iii). SBA is adding the three-year time frame in § 125.12(i)(2)(iv).

In addition, section 823 of NDAA 2020 changed the threshold for which a justification and approval is needed for Department of Defense (DoD) covered procurements. Section 811 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, Public Law 111- 84, 123 Stat. 2190, 2405, required the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) to be amended to include a new requirement for a written justification of sole-source 8(a) awards over $20 million. The FAR increased this threshold to $22 million due to inflation on July 2, 2015. 80 FR 38293, 38296. While the section 811 requirement for a justification and approval applied to all civilian and defense agencies, section 823 of NDAA 2020 increased the threshold to $100 million only for the DoD. As such, this rule amends SBA's regulations to increase the justification and approval requirement to $100 million only with respect to DoD 8(a) contracts. In addition, DoD, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are charged with amending the FAR to adjust statutory acquisition-related thresholds for inflation every five years. On October 2, 2020, DoD, GSA, and NASA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending the FAR to implement new inflationary adjustments. 85 FR 62485. As part of that final rule, the $22 million justification and approval threshold authorized by section 811 of NDAA 2010 was increased to $25 million. Thus, in addition to increasing the threshold to $100 million for DoD-related 8(a) procurements, this rule also increases the justification and approval threshold from $22 million to $25 million for all other agencies. This rule amends § 124.502(c)(17) and § 124.506(b)(5) to adjust the justification and approval thresholds accordingly.

In addition to the justification and approval and 8(a) sole source thresholds identified above that were raised in response to the inflationary adjustments made to the FAR, that same FAR rule also adjusted other SBA-related contacting dollar thresholds for inflation. 85 FR 62485. Section 864 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, Public Law 116-283, subsequently amended the Small Business Act to set the 8(a), HUBZone, and WOSB sole source thresholds for manufacturing contracts to $7,000,000. As such, this rule incorporates the FAR changes into SBA's regulations except where section 864 retained a $7 million sole source threshold amount for manufacturing contracts. Specifically, this rule adopts the inflationary adjustments made to the sole source thresholds in the FAR for the 8(a) BD Program (by amending § 124.506(a)(2)(ii) of SBA's regulations), the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern Program (by amending § 125.23(b)(1) of SBA's regulations), the Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program (by amending § 126.612(b)(1) and (2) of SBA's regulations), and the Women-Owned Small Business Program (by amending § 127.503(c)(2) and § 127.503(d)(2) of SBA's regulations). SBA is also updating a threshold for its Small Business Subcontracting Program, which is contained in § 125.3(c).

SBA is also making corrections to § 126.200(f) and § 126.700(b)(1). Currently both sections contain an incorrect reference to § 126.5. The correct cross reference should be to § 125.6, and this rule corrects the typographical errors.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 also requires that regulations be based on the open exchange of information and perspectives among state and local officials, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole. SBA has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. While developing this rule, SBA responded to specific inquiries from government officials and the public regarding the implementation of the statutory required changes.

This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This direct final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

SBA has analyzed this direct final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule under subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

SBA has determined that this direct final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small non-profit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Within the meaning of RFA, SBA certifies that this direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It does not add any new requirements to SBA's regulations, but merely adjusts specified thresholds to conform to statutory changes and changes made by the FAR.

In general, SBA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553. The Administrative Procedure Act provides an exception to this standard rulemaking process, however, where an agency finds good cause to adopt a rule without prior public participation. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public participation is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

SBA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because public participation is unnecessary. SBA views this as a non-controversial administrative action because it merely implements a change required by the Small Business Act, as amended by section 876 of NDAA 2020. This rule will be effective on the date shown in the DATES section unless SBA receives significant adverse comment on or before the deadline for comments. Significant adverse comments are comments that provide strong justifications why the rule should not be adopted or for changing the rule. SBA does not expect to receive any significant adverse comments because the rule simply mirrors the statutory language contained in section 876 of NDAA 2020, with no extraneous interpretation or other expanded text. The remaining technical changes merely conform SBA regulations with the updated thresholds in the FAR.

If SBA receives significant adverse comment, SBA will publish a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before the effective date. If SBA receives no significant adverse comments, the rule will be effective 90 days after publication without further notice.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR parts 124, 125, 126, and 127 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2021-0950; Project Identifier MCA-2021-01075-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain RRD BR700-710A2-20 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2021 (86 FR 17326). The NPRM was prompted by flight data obtained from airplanes equipped with certain Rockwell Collins avionics and auto-throttle systems that demonstrated significant oscillation of the engine rotor revolution speed during flight. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require initial and repetitive recalculation of the consumed and remaining service life of certain LLPs. The NPRM also proposed to require removal of an LLP prior to its approved life limit or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0268, dated December 11, 2018 and corrected on February 20, 2019 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0257.

The FAA received comments from one commenter, NetJets Aviation (NJA). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

NJA asked if they are in compliance with this AD if they performed the required actions using Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 700-34-5021 or Bombardier SB 700-34-6021, revisions earlier than Revision 3, dated January 5, 2018, as applicable. NJA reasoned that paragraph (c), Applicability, of the proposed AD references only Revision 3 of Bombardier SB 700-34-5021 and Bombardier SB 700-34-6021 (Bombardier SBs). NJA states that it performed the required actions using Revision 2 of the Bombardier SBs before the effective date of this AD. NJA also referenced language from Revision 3 of the Bombardier SBs that indicates no further action is necessary if operators performed the action using earlier revisions of the Bombardier SBs.

The FAA notes that NJA would be in compliance with the required actions of this AD if they performed those actions using the earlier versions of the Bombardier SBs to meet the requirements of this AD. The FAA updated paragraph (h), Credit for Previous Actions, of this AD to give credit for using earlier revisions of the Bombardier SBs if the actions were performed before the effective date of this AD.

NJA asked if they would be in compliance with the required actions of this AD, based on paragraph (h), Credit for Previous Actions, if they complied with the Bombardier SBs and RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900584, Revision 2, dated November 22, 2017 (the NMSB), at the same time before the fleet accumulated 500 flight cycles. NJA indicated that the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(1) and (2), of the NMSB apply only to the low-pressure compressor (LPC) disk whereas this AD applies to all LLPs.

The FAA notes that NJA would be in compliance with the replacement of the LPC disk required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD if they performed the action before the effective date of this AD. Paragraph (f) of this AD mandates compliance with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

The FAA determined the need to incorporate the latest service information in this AD. The FAA revised the reference to Bombardier SB 700-34-5021 in paragraph (c) of this AD from Revision 03, dated January 5, 2018, to Revision 04, dated February 11, 2021, or earlier revision, and Bombardier SB 700-34-6021 in paragraph (c) of this AD from Revision 03, dated January 5, 2018, to Revision 04, dated February 11, 2021, or earlier revision. This change does not change the number of affected engines that the FAA estimated in the NPRM and imposes no additional burden on operators who are required to comply with this AD.

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

The FAA reviewed RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900584, Revision 2, dated November 22, 2017. The NMSB describes procedures for amending flight cycle counting requirements for affected LLPs on RRD BR700-710A2-20 model turbofan engines. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA reviewed Bombardier SB 700-34-5021, Revision 04, dated February 11, 2021, and Bombardier SB 700-34-6021, Revision 04, dated February 11, 2021. These SBs describe procedures for the implementation of the Global Vision Flight Deck Version 5 (V5) software load on Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-1A11 and BD-700-1A10 airplanes, respectively.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 284 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005-05-18, Amendment 39-14007 (70 FR 12410, March 14, 2005) (AD 2005-05-18). AD 2005-05-18 applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2021 (86 FR 34660). The NPRM was prompted by cracking found in an inspection area on airplanes not identified in the applicability of AD 2005-05-18. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead at a certain body station, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the applicability to include additional airplanes, and adding an inspection for existing repairs on the newly added airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracks in the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from United Airlines and Jack Kendrick, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from two commenters, including Boeing and Aviation Partners Boeing. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of blended or split scimitar winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect compliance with the proposed actions.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that the installation of winglets per STC ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Operators of airplanes with these winglets do not need to request a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval as specified in 14 CFR 39.17. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD accordingly.

Boeing asked that the FAA clarify the language describing the inspection location and reporting requirements in the “Related Service Information Under 1 CFR 51” paragraph in the preamble of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the language should identify the center dome apex location, and also specify reporting of any cracks found.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request to clarify the inspection location in the “Related Service Information” section, due to the vast number of web fasteners located around the bulkhead. The FAA has clarified that language accordingly.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to add reporting language to that section, because the manufacturer did not include a reporting requirement for this particular cracking condition in the service information. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that the FAA clarify the language in the Actions Since AD 2005-05-18 Was Issued section of the proposed AD. Boeing suggested changing the sentence that begins “During the assembly process on line numbers 1167 through 1755, the fasteners,” as follows: “Fasteners on line numbers 1167 through 1755 in the apex dome region are subjected to clamp-up stresses from the assembly process and fatigue cycles during fuselage pressurization.” Boeing stated that this change is to clarify the meaning of the language used in the proposed AD.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request and agrees the proposed wording provides clarity. However, that section is not carried over into this final rule. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1251, Revision 2, dated January 20, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for a general visual inspection for existing repairs, repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracks around the web center dome apex fasteners, repetitive low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection for cracks around the hidden web lap splice fastener locations, and repair of cracks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 744 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during April, May, and June 2021, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the office of the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500. Persons with access to the internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-veterinary-medicine/cvm-foia-electronic-reading-room. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, “Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book)” at: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/products/approved-animal-drug-products-green-book.

FDA has verified the website addresses as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register , but websites are subject to change over time.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 100 College St., New Haven, CT 06510 has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 121 Seaport Blvd., Boston, MA 02210.

Purina Animal Nutrition LLC, 1080 County Road F West, Shoreview, MN 55126-2910 has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 4001 Lexington Ave., North Arden Hills, MN 55126-2910.

FDA is making the following amendment to improve the accuracy of the animal drug regulations:

• 21 CFR 520.304 is amended to reflect the currently approved strengths of carprofen chewable tablets.

• 21 CFR part 522 is amended to organize sections for injectable pentobarbital drugs by their titles in alphabetic sequence.

• 21 CFR 558.128 is amended to add introductory text identifying the paragraph for medicated cattle feeds containing chlortetracycline.

• 21 CFR 558.355 is amended to add introductory text identifying the paragraph for medicated cattle feeds containing monensin.

This final rule is issued under section 512(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(i)), which requires Federal Register publication of “notice[s] . . . effective as a regulation,” of the conditions of use of approved new animal drugs. This rule sets forth technical amendments to the regulations to codify recent actions on approved new animal drug applications and corrections to improve the accuracy of the regulations, and as such does not impose any burden on regulated entities.

Although denominated a rule pursuant to the FD&C Act, this document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a “rule of particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866, which defines a rule as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.”

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, 556, and 558 are amended as follows:

In accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, among other authorities, DOJ is responsible for complying with information security policies and procedures requiring information security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of DOJ information and information systems. See, e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3554 (2018). Consistent with these requirements, DOJ must ensure that it maintains accurate audit and activity records of the observable occurrences on its information systems and networks (also referred to as “events”) that are significant and relevant to the security of DOJ information and information systems. These audit and activity records may include, but are not limited to, information that establishes what type of event occurred, when the event occurred, where the event occurred, the source of the event, the outcome of the event, and the identity of any individuals or subjects associated with the event. Additionally, monitored events—whether detected utilizing information systems maintaining audit and activity records, reported to the Department by information system users, or reported to the Department by the cybersecurity research community and members of the general public conducting good faith vulnerability discovery activities—may constitute occurrences that (1) actually or imminently jeopardize, without lawful authority, the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of information or an information system; or (2) constitute a violation or imminent threat of violation of law, security policies, security procedures, or acceptable use policies. The Department has developed a formal process to track and document these reported “incidents,” which may, in limited circumstances, include records of individuals reporting, or otherwise associated with, an actual or suspected event or incident.

In the Federal Register of July 14, 2021 (86 FR 37188), the Department modified a Department-wide system of records retitled, “Department of Justice Information Technology, Information System, and Network Activity and Access Records,” JUSTICE/DOJ-002. This system of records covers the Department's tracking of all DOJ information technology, DOJ information system, and DOJ network activity and access by users. These records assist Department information security professionals in protecting DOJ information, ensuring the secure operation of DOJ information systems, and tracking and documenting incidents reported to the agency. The revisions to this notice reflect changes in technology, including the increased ability of the Department to link individuals to information technology, information system, or network activity, and to better describe the Department's records linking individuals to reported cybersecurity incidents or their access to certain information technologies, information systems, and networks through the internet or other authorized connections.

The Department received no comments in response to the NPRM for JUSTICE/DOJ-002 (86 FR 38624 (July 22, 2021)), and now finalizes this rule without changes. In this rulemaking, the Department exempts JUSTICE/DOJ-002 from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in order to avoid interference with the responsibilities of the Department to prevent the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of DOJ information and information systems. Additionally, the Department exempts JUSTICE/DOJ-002 from certain provisions of the Privacy Act to protect activity and audit log records on DOJ classified networks.

The Department notes that the name of the system of records which is the subject of this rule was changed from “Department of Justice Computer Systems Activity and Access Records” to “Department of Justice Information Technology, Information System, and Network Activity and Access Records” in the notice that was published on July 14, 2021. The NPRM, which was published on July 21, 2021, inadvertently referred to the system of records by the previous name. Additionally, the NPRM indicated in one place an exemption from subsection (d), and in another place an exemption from subsections (d)(1)-(4). In an effort to reduce potential confusion, the language in the final rule has been modified to consistently identify the system of records as being exempted from subsections (d)(1)-(4). Further, corrections have been inserted in the final rule in multiple places where the NPRM had used the term “system,” although “system of records” was clearly intended. Finally, the proposed rule stated that, in determining the relevance and utility of certain exempted information, it would be vetted and matched with other information necessarily and lawfully maintained by the DOJ, external federal agency subscribers, or other entities. Such information need only be maintained lawfully by the DOJ, external federal agency subscribers, or other entities for use in the vetting and matching described. The Department has determined that these changes do not significantly alter the efficacy of the notice that was provided to the public. The Department has made the adjustments in the final rule, which is published herein.

This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation.

The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866.

This regulation will only impact Privacy Act-protected records, which are personal and generally do not apply to an individual's entrepreneurial capacity, subject to limited exceptions. Accordingly, the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This regulation will have no implications for Indian Tribal governments. More specifically, it does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000, as adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the Department to comply with small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within the Department's jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above. Persons can obtain further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's web page at https://www.sba.gov/advocacy. This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the Congressional Review Act.

This rule imposes no information collection or recordkeeping requirements.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, the Department of Justice amends 28 CFR part 16 as follows:

In accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, among other authorities, agencies are responsible for complying with information security policies and procedures requiring information security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm resulting from the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of DOJ information and information systems. See, e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3554 (2018). Executive Order 13800, Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure (May 2017), directs agency heads to show preference in their procurement for shared information technology (IT) services, to the extent permitted by law, including email, cloud, and cybersecurity services. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-19-16, Centralized Mission Support Capabilities for the Federal Government (April 26, 2019), establishes the framework for implementing the “Sharing Quality Services” across agencies. The Economy Act of 1932, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 1535, authorizes agencies to enter into agreements to obtain supplies or services from another agency. Consistent with these authorities, the Justice Management Division (JMD), Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), Cybersecurity Services Staff (CSS), developed the Security Monitoring and Analytics Service (SMAS) system to provide DOJ-managed information technology service offerings to other Federal agencies wishing to leverage DOJ's cybersecurity services, referred to as “external federal agency subscribers.” This system provides external Federal agency subscribers with the technical capability to protect their data from malicious or accidental threats using a DOJ-managed system. In the Federal Register of July 30, 2021 (86 FR 41089), JMD published a notice of a new system of records titled, “Security Monitoring and Analytics Service Records,” JUSTICE/JMD-026, to provide the public notice of the records maintained by DOJ while implementing SMAS.

In this rulemaking, the Department exempts JUSTICE/JMD-026 from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in order to avoid interference with the responsibilities of the Department to prevent the unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction of external Federal agency subscribers' information and information systems. Additionally, the Department exempts JUSTICE/JMD-026 from certain provisions to assist DOJ and external Federal agency subscribers with protecting such data and ensuring the secure operation of information systems.

The Department received two anonymous comments during the notice-and-comment period. One comment expressed general support for the Department's work to address cybersecurity threats to the government through the implementation of JUSTICE/JMD-026. The second comment broadly questioned whether the proposed exemption would impact in any way the public's ability to access information maintained in the system of records or otherwise reduce the level of transparency required to maintain the public's trust in the Department. As noted in the rule, any restrictions on individual access are based on an articulated need to protect sensitive or law enforcement information. The Privacy Act was drafted to allow agencies to appropriately restrict the public's access to records maintained in a system of records when doing so could potentially reveal sensitive or law enforcement information. When working to ensure cybersecurity, the Department must balance the needs of ensuring transparency and public access with a duty to protect sensitive or law enforcement information that may reveal sources and methods or otherwise compromise law enforcement equities. Accordingly, the Department is proceeding with issuing this final rule without change.

In reviewing the proposed rule (86 FR 40972, July 30, 2021) for publication, the Department identified a minor typographical error in the name and number of the identified system of records proposed to be exempted. Additionally, the proposed rule indicated in one place an exemption from subsection (d), and in another place an exemption from subsections (d)(1)-(4). In an effort to reduce potential confusion, the language in the final rule has been modified to consistently identify the system of records as being exempted from subsections (d)(1)-(4). Further, corrections have been inserted in the final rule in multiple places where the proposed rule had used the term “system,” although “system of records” was clearly intended. Finally, the proposed rule stated that, in determining the relevance and utility of certain exempted information, it would be vetted and matched with other information necessarily and lawfully maintained by the DOJ, external Federal agency subscribers, or other entities. Such information need only be maintained lawfully by the DOJ, external Federal agency subscribers, or other entities for use in the vetting and matching described. The Department has determined that these changes do not significantly alter the efficacy of the notice that was provided to the public. The Department has made the adjustments in the final rule, which is published herein.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and 552a(k), this regulation is subject to formal rulemaking procedures by giving interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process “through submission of written data, views, or arguments,” pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553. This regulation will promulgate certain Privacy Act exemptions for a DOJ system of records titled, “Security Monitoring and Analytics Service Records,” JUSTICE/JMD-026. This regulation does not raise novel legal or policy issues, nor does it adversely affect the economy, the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof in a material way. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866.

This regulation will only impact Privacy Act-protected records, which are personal and generally do not apply to an individual's entrepreneurial capacity, subject to limited exceptions. Accordingly, the Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the Department to comply with small entity requests for information and advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within the Department's jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above. Persons can obtain further information regarding SBREFA on the Small Business Administration's web page at https://www.sba.gov/advocacy. This regulation is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the Congressional Review Act.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This regulation will have no implications for Indian Tribal governments. More specifically, it does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000, as adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the Congressional Review Act.

This rule imposes no information collection or recordkeeping requirements.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and delegated to me by Attorney General Order 2940-2008, the Department of Justice amends 28 CFR part 16 as follows:

The Coast Guard regularly updates the regulations for recurring special local regulations within the Fifth Coast Guard District listed in 33 CFR 100.501, and its respective tables. These recurring special local regulations are for marine events that take place either on or over the navigable waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District as defined at 33 CFR 3.25. These regulations were last amended June 13, 2017 (81 FR 81005). Since then, Marine Events within the Fifth US Coast Guard District have been newly created or changed in a way that varies from their description in this regulation. In response, on June 03, 2021, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events and within the Fifth Coast Guard District (86 FR 29711). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to special local regulations and recurring marine events. The comment period ended on July 6, 2021, and we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. The Secretary has delegated ports and waterways authority, with certain reservations not applicable here, to the Commandant via DHS Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(70), Revision No. 01.2. The Commandant has further delegated these authorities within the Coast Guard as described in 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 6.04-6. The Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of participant injury or death resulting from near or actual contact with non-participant vessels traversing through the regulated areas. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users, including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event. This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), or designated Event Patrol Commander.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published June 3, 2021. We made no changes to the regulatory text as it was proposed in our NPRM. The following discussion explains the changes made to the CFR by this rule.

We have made several stylistic and formatting changes to update 33 CFR 100.501, and associated tables, to provide greater clarity and remove potential ambiguities. We have also made revisions to reflect current Coast Guard marine event policy. The following is a summary of changes from the current regulatory text:

• Plain language edits, such as switching from passive to active voice and more clearly stating the enforcement period for each event.

• Writing regulatory requirements and definitions in the singular rather than the plural, where appropriate.

• Listing definitions and the events by COTP Zone in alphabetical order.

• Reformatting the table entries so they all are similar.

• Separating the special local regulations for each COTP Zone into their own tables.

• Amending the name and location for Sector Virginia to Portsmouth, VA (where the command center is located), and updating the phone number for Sector North Carolina.

Additionally, we consolidated all defined terms into a single paragraph, 33 CFR 100.501(b), and listed them in alphabetical order. Currently the defined terms “buffer area”, “race area”, and “spectator area” appear in the regulatory requirements paragraph 33 CFR 100.5014(c) rather than with the definitions. These definitions have been moved to the definition section and put into alphabetical order. Regulatory requirements for these areas will remain in the regulatory requirements portion of the regulation.

We changed the defined term of “buffer area” to “buffer zone” to comport with the more common usage. The definition is revised to reflect that it may sometimes be appropriate to utilize a buffer zone at the event if there is not a spectator area within the regulated area.

We changed the defined term “Coast Guard Patrol Commander” to “Event Patrol Commander or Event PATCOM” in alignment with updated local policy. The underlying associated definition remains the same: A Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf.

We changed the defined term of “official patrol” to “official patrol vessel or official patrol” in alignment with updated local policy. The text of the definition remains unchanged except for some additional language to allow the Event PATCOM to be augmented by local, state, or federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard in accordance with local agreements. This revision enhances the resources available to the COTP to ensure the safety and security of the public during these events.

We removed the defined term, “spectator”, and added definitions for “participant” and “non-participant”. This wording change better reflects who is actually present in and near regulated areas and how the Coast Guard regulates their activities.

We amended current paragraph (b) and (c) in the final text, delegating authority to the local COTP to determine when a marine patrol is required. This delegation of authority from the District Commander provides the local operational commander with the ability to manage and maintain safety and security for events within their area of responsibility. We have also updated the text to allow for other government agencies to provide safety zone enforcement when working under local agreements and added the term Event Patrol Commander (Event PATCOM). Collectively, these changes enable the local Captain of the Port to retain operational control and incorporate risk based decision making to the event. Finally, a paragraph has been added giving authority to the COTP, COTPR, or Event PATCOM to postpone or cancel the event to ensure the safety of the event and the public.

This rule adds 7 new special local regulations for recurring marine events, revises 12 previously established regulations for recurring marine events, and removes 14 recurring events listed in 33 CFR 100.501 for the reasons provided in the table. The revised events and the new events are required to comply with the requirements in 33 CFR 100.501.

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

On August 18, 2021, we proposed to approve and incorporate by reference the provisions of Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-423 Low Emission Vehicles submitted by the Department of Ecology (86 FR 46169). The reasons for our proposed approval were stated in the proposed rulemaking and will not be re-stated here. The public comment period for our proposed approval ended on September 17, 2021, and we received one comment in support of the proposed approval. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference into the Washington SIP, the following provisions of Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 173-423 Low Emission Vehicles submitted by the Department of Ecology:

• WAC 173-423-010, state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-020, state effective December 31, 2005;

• WAC 173-423-025, state effective December 31, 2005;

• WAC 173-423-030, state effective December 31, 2005;

• WAC 173-423-040, except 173-423-040(3), state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-050, except 173-423-050(2)(g), state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-060, state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-070, except the incorporation by reference of California code sections 1961.1 and 1961.3, state effective January 27, 2019;

• WAC 173-423-080, state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-100, state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-110, state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-120, state effective December 29, 2012;

• WAC 173-423-130, state effective December 31, 2005;

• WAC 173-423-140, state effective December 31, 2005; and

• WAC 173-423-150, state effective December 31, 2005.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the regulations described in section II of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 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 the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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, the 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);

• 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; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated July 15, 2019.

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 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 January 7, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you import mercury-added products. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include the following:

• Gold ore mining (NAICS code 212221).

• Lead ore and zinc ore mining (NAICS code 212231).

• All other metal ore mining (NAICS code 212299).

• Asphalt shingle and coating materials manufacturing (NAICS code 324122).

• Synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing (NAICS code 325130).

• Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325180).

• All other basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325199).

• Plastics material and resin manufacturing (NAICS code 325211).

• Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325320).

• Medicinal and botanical manufacturing (NAICS code 325411).

• Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing (NAICS code 325412).

• Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing (NAICS code 325414).

• Paint and coating manufacturing (NAICS code 325510).

• Adhesive manufacturing (NAICS code 325520).

• Custom compounding of purchased resins (NAICS code 325991).

• Photographic film, paper, plate, and chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325992).

• All other miscellaneous chemical product and preparation manufacturing (NAICS code 325998).

• Unlaminated plastics film and sheet (except packaging) manufacturing (NAICS code 326113).

• Unlaminated plastics profile shape manufacturing (NAICS code 326121).

• Urethane and other foam product (except polystyrene) manufacturing (NAICS code 326150).

• All other plastics product manufacturing (NAICS code 326199).

• Tire manufacturing (NAICS code 326211).

• All other rubber product manufacturing (NAICS code 326299).

• Iron and steel mills and ferroalloy manufacturing (NAICS code 331110).

• Rolled steel shape manufacturing (NAICS code 331221).

• Alumina refining and primary aluminum production (NAICS code 331313).

• Secondary smelting and alloying of aluminum (NAICS code 331314).

• Nonferrous metal (except aluminum) smelting and refining (NAICS code 331410).

• Secondary smelting, refining, and alloying of nonferrous metal (except copper and aluminum) (NAICS code 331492).

• Iron foundries (NAICS code 331511).

• Steel foundries (except investment) (NAICS code 331513).

• Fabricated structural metal manufacturing (NAICS code 332312).

• Industrial valve manufacturing (NAICS code 332911).

• Ammunition except small arms manufacturing (NAICS code 332993).

• Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing (NAICS code 332994).

• All other miscellaneous fabricated metal product manufacturing (NAICS code 332999).

• Food product machinery manufacturing (NAICS code 333294).

• Office machinery manufacturing (NAICS code 333313).

• Other commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing (NAICS code 333319).

• Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) manufacturing (NAICS code 333414).

• Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 333415).

• Pump and pumping equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 333911).

• Bare printed circuit board manufacturing (NAICS code 334412).

• Semiconductor and related device manufacturing (NAICS code 334413).

• Other electronic component manufacturing (NAICS code 334419).

• Electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing (NAICS code 334510). Search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical system and instrument manufacturing (NAICS code 334511).

• Automatic environmental control manufacturing for residential, commercial, and appliance use (NAICS code 334512).

• Instruments and related products manufacturing for measuring, displaying, and controlling industrial process variables (NAICS code 334513).

• Totalizing fluid meter and counting device manufacturing (NAICS code 334514).

• Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical signals (NAICS code 334515).

• Analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing (NAICS code 334516).

• Watch, clock, and part manufacturing (NAICS code 334518).

• Other measuring and controlling device manufacturing (NAICS code 334519).

• Electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing (NAICS code 335110).

• Commercial, industrial, and institutional electric lighting fixture manufacturing (NAICS code 335122).

• Other lighting equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 335129).

• Electric house wares and household fan manufacturing (NAICS code 335211).

• Household vacuum cleaner manufacturing (NAICS code 335212).

• Household cooking appliance manufacturing (NAICS code 335221).

• Household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing (NAICS code 335222).

• Household laundry equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 335224).

• Other major household appliance manufacturing (NAICS code 335228).

• Switchgear and switchboard apparatus manufacturing (NAICS code 335313).

• Relay and industrial control manufacturing (NAICS code 335314).

• Primary battery manufacturing (NAICS code 335912).

• Current-carrying wiring device manufacturing (NAICS code 335931).

• All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and component manufacturing (NAICS code 335999).

• Automobile manufacturing (NAICS code 336111).

• Light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing (NAICS code 336112).

• Heavy duty truck manufacturing (NAICS code 336120).

• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).

• Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 336214).

• Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing (NAICS code 336413).

• Boat building (NAICS code 336612).

• Motorcycles and parts manufacturing (NAICS code 336991).

• Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing (NAICS code 339112).

• Costume jewelry and novelty manufacturing (NAICS code 339914).

• Game, toy, and children's vehicle manufacturing (NAICS code 339932).

• Sign manufacturing (NAICS code 339950).

• Other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424690).

• Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life sciences (except biotechnology) (NAICS code 541712).

• Hazardous waste treatment and disposal (NAICS code 562211).

• Other nonhazardous waste treatment and disposal (NAICS code 562219).

• Materials recovery facilities (NAICS code 562920).

• National security (NAICS code 928110).

In June 2018, EPA finalized a rule to require reporting from persons who manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process (Ref. 1). That rule was challenged in the Second Circuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council and several state attorneys general in July 2018. Oral arguments were held on November 20, 2019, and the court issued its decision on June 5, 2020. The petitioners argued that three exemptions to the reporting requirements violated the statutory mandate within TSCA section 8(b)(10). The Agency argued that the three exemptions were lawful because EPA determined certain reporting to be duplicative or burdensome per existing EPA or other mercury-related reporting requirements. Duplicative or overly burdensome reporting requirements are prohibited under TSCA section 8(a)(5). The Agency prevailed on two issues, but the Second Circuit vacated the exemption at 40 CFR 713.7(b)(2) for persons who import pre-assembled products that contain a mercury-added component (Ref. 2). As a result, such persons are now required to report pursuant to 40 CFR 713.7(b). This rule is effectuating the vacatur ordered by the Second Circuit by making necessary amendments to the corresponding text in 40 CFR 713.7(b).

EPA is issuing this final rule pursuant to TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D)), which authorizes EPA to require reporting in order to assist in preparing the inventory of mercury supply, use and trade in the United States. In addition, section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for revising these provisions without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because these revisions simply undertake the ministerial task of implementing the court order vacating an exemption at 40 CFR 713.7(b)(2) and making the necessary amendments to corresponding text in 40 CFR 713.7(b). As a matter of law, the order issued by the Second Circuit on June 5, 2020 vacated the reporting exemption for persons who manufacture (including import) a mercury-added product where that person is “engaged only in the import of a product that contains a component that is a mercury-added product.” It is, therefore, unnecessary to provide notice and an opportunity for comment on this action, which merely carries out the court's order.

EPA is effectuating the Second Circuit vacatur of the exemption for persons who manufacture (including import) a mercury-added product where that person is “engaged only in the import of a product that contains a component that is a mercury-added product.” Therefore, the current text at 40 CFR 713.7(b)(2) will be removed and replaced (with appropriate textual and numbering updates) with the text currently found at 40 CFR 713.7(b)(3).

EPA has prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 3). This economic analysis estimates and evaluates the total costs and benefits for additional reporters to the mercury inventory reporting rule due to this rulemaking ( i.e., those that import products that contain a component that is a mercury-added product). EPA is considering an estimate of 756 as the number of sites potentially subject to the amended rule, which, under the revised requirements, is now applicable to imports of products that contain a component that is a mercury-added product. EPA estimates that as many as 657 sites will submit reports due to the revised requirements. This is the incremental difference between the number of actual reporters to the mercury inventory reporting rule during the 2019 submission period, and the expected number of total reporters based on the number of entities that report to the Interstate Mercury Education & Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) or to EPA's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) or Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). More details on the methodology used can be found in the Agency's economic analysis (Ref. 3).

The chief benefit of the final rule is the collection of detailed data on mercury, which will serve as a basis to recommend actions to further reduce mercury use in the United States, as required at TSCA section 8(b)(10)(C). Another benefit is the use of information collected under the final rule to help the United States implement its obligations under the Minamata Convention, a multilateral environmental agreement that addresses specific human activities that are contributing to widespread mercury pollution. While there are no quantified benefits for the final rule, the statutory mandates at TSCA sections 8(b)(10)(C) and (D) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(C) and (D)), specifically call for and authorizes a rule to support an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States, to identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury, and to recommend actions to achieve further reductions in mercury use. As described in the Agency's economic analysis, unquantified benefits include providing increased information on mercury and assisting in the reduction of mercury use (Ref. 3). To the extent that the information gathered through this rule is used to reduce mercury use, benefits to society will result from a reduction in exposure.

• Benefits: The final rule will provide information on mercury and mercury-added products to which the Agency (and the public) does not currently have access. To the extent that the information gathered through this final rule is used to reduce mercury use, benefits to society will result from a reduction in risk.

• Costs: Total reporter (industry) costs the first year were estimated in 2020$ at $5.1 million, and $3.6 million in subsequent reporting years. Annualized over 10 years, the reporter costs are $1.5 million at both 3% and 7% discount rates. Agency costs are $729 per report per year, for an annualized cost of $177,000 and $181,000 at 3% and 7% discount rates, respectively. Therefore, the total annualized costs are expected to be approximately $1.7 million at both 3% and 7% discount rates. The total burden of the rule is expected to be approximately 212,000 hours over the 10-year analysis period. These estimates include compliance determination, rule familiarization, CBI substantiation, electronic reporting, and recordkeeping, in addition to completing reporting requirements.

• Small Entity Impacts: The final rule will impact 203 companies that meet the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) definitions for their respective NAICS classifications. Among the total 657 sites regulated under the rule, EPA found that the costs of the rule exceed 3 percent of the value of sales for 2 small businesses, and an additional 3 small businesses may incur costs at between 1 and 3 percent of the value of sales. EPA is unable to determine whether these 5 small businesses actually import products that contain a component that is a mercury-added product.

• Environmental Justice and Protection of Children: The Agency believes that the information collected under this rule, if finalized, will assist EPA and others in determining the potential hazards and risks associated with elemental mercury and mercury compounds. Although not directly impacting environmental justice-related concerns, this information will enable the Agency to better protect human health and the environment, including in low-income and minority communities. The rule is directed at all mercury-added products that are manufactured or imported into the United States. All consumers of these chemicals and the products made from them and all workers who come into contact with these chemicals could benefit if data regarding the chemicals' health and environmental effects were developed. Therefore, it does not appear that the costs and the benefits of the rule will be disproportionately distributed across different geographic regions or among different categories of individuals.

• Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule's requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture (including import) mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally use mercury in a manufacturing process. The final rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications.

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

The revised information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., as part of a request to renew the existing approval under OMB Control No. 2070-0207. The renewal Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2567.04. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The revised information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

The ICR renewal request explains the necessary adjustments related to the Second Circuit vacatur. Applying the reporting requirements identified in the 2018 final rule to persons who manufacture (including import) a mercury-added product will provide EPA with more complete information necessary to prepare and periodically update an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States, as required by TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D). These reporting requirements will help the Agency to prepare subsequent, triennial publications of the inventory, as well as to carry out the requirement of TSCA section 8(b)(10)(C) to identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury and recommend actions, including proposed revisions of Federal law or regulations, to achieve further reductions in mercury use. EPA intends to use information collected under the rule to assist in efforts to reduce the use of mercury in products and processes and to facilitate reporting on implementation of the Minamata Convention by the United States. Respondents may claim some of the information reported to EPA under the final rule as CBI under TSCA section 14. TSCA section 14(c) requires a supporting statement and certification for confidentiality claims asserted after June 22, 2016.

Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, importers, and processors of mercury and mercury-added products.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)(10)(D)).

Estimated number of respondents: 756.

Frequency of response: Triennially.

Total estimated annual burden: 17,348 hours (averaged over 3 years). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated annual cost: $1,384,999 (averaged over 3 years), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

Change in burden estimates: Based on the numbers of reporters of mercury data to the IMERC Mercury-added Products Database, as well as EPA's TRI program and CDR rule, there will be a change in manufacturers (including importers) or processors that could respond to this information collection. The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated about 23 hours per respondent. This request represents a decrease of 9 hours per respondent from that currently in the OMB inventory, or a total decrease of 20,522 hours (from 72,567 to 52,045 hours). This change reflects a decrease in rule familiarization burden, a decrease in form completion burden due to mercury export prohibitions, and changes in the number of estimated respondents.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves the renewal ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.

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

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 through 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As such, the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of UMRA do not apply to this action.

This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have any effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

This action does not involve any technical standards. Therefore, section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action establishes an information requirement and does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Chapter I is amended as follows:

All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) turtles are listed as endangered. The loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) and green ( Chelonia mydas ) turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.

Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and some are killed, as a result of numerous activities, including fishery-related trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, the taking of sea turtles is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206(d), or according to the terms and conditions of a biological opinion issued under section 7 of the ESA, or according to an incidental take permit issued under section 10 of the ESA. The incidental taking of turtles during shrimp or summer flounder trawling is exempted from the taking prohibition of section 9 of the ESA, if the conservation measures specified in the sea turtle conservation regulations (50 CFR part 223) are followed. The regulations require most shrimp trawlers and summer flounder trawlers operating in the southeastern United States (Atlantic area, Gulf area, and summer flounder sea turtle protection area, see 50 CFR 223.206) to have a NMFS-approved TED installed in each net that is rigged for fishing to allow sea turtles to escape. TEDs currently approved by NMFS include single-grid hard TEDs and hooped hard TEDs conforming to a generic description, the flounder TED, and one type of soft TED—the Parker soft TED (see 50 CFR 223.207).

TEDs incorporate an escape opening, usually covered by a webbing flap, which allows sea turtles to escape from trawl nets. To be approved by NMFS, a TED design must be shown to be 97 percent effective in excluding sea turtles during testing based upon specific testing protocols (50 CFR 223.207(e)(1)). Approved hard TEDs are described in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207(a)) according to generic criteria based upon certain parameters of TED design, configuration, and installation, including height and width dimensions of the TED opening through which the turtles escape.

The regulations governing sea turtle take prohibitions and exemptions provide for the use of limited tow times as an alternative to the use of TEDs for vessels with certain specified characteristics or under certain special circumstances. The provisions of 50 CFR 223.206(d)(3)(ii) specify that the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) may authorize compliance with tow time restrictions as an alternative to the TED requirement if the AA determines that the presence of algae, seaweed, debris, or other special environmental conditions in a particular area makes trawling with TED-equipped nets impracticable. Namely, TEDs can become clogged with debris, which can prevent target species from passing into the codend of the net and sea turtles from escaping through the TED opening. The provisions of 50 CFR 223.206(d)(3)(i) specify the maximum tow times that may be used when tow time limits are authorized as an alternative to the use of TEDs. Each tow may be no more than 55 minutes from April 1 through October 31 and no more than 75 minutes from November 1 through March 31, as measured from the time that the trawl doors enter the water until they are removed from the water. For a trawl that is not attached to a door, the tow time begins at the time the codend enters the water and ends at the time the codend is emptied of catch on deck. These tow time limits are designed to minimize the level of mortality of sea turtles that are captured by trawl nets not equipped with TEDs.

On September 21, 2021, the NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator received a request from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) to allow the use of tow times as an alternative to TEDs because of excessive storm-related debris on the fishing grounds as a result of Hurricane Ida. The request identified the affected area as inside and outside waters from the Mississippi/Louisiana state line westward to the Freshwater Bayou Canal, located due west of Vermilion Bay. When a TED is clogged with debris it can no longer catch shrimp effectively, nor can it effectively exclude turtles. Despite contrary assertions in the request from LDWF, sea turtle interactions with shrimp trawls have been extensively documented in Louisiana state waters by NMFS observers, and a temporary exemption from the TED requirements can help minimize the effects of those interactions on sea turtles during such special conditions. Louisiana has stated that their marine enforcement agents will enforce the tow time restrictions.

Field investigation by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Pascagoula Lab, Gear Monitoring Team determined debris is affecting fisher's ability to use TEDs effectively within the area bounded by 91° 23′ West longitude ( i.e., where the COLREGS demarcation line intersects the ship channel coming out of the Atchafalaya River), eastward to the Louisiana/Mississippi border, and seaward out 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers).

The AA finds that debris washed into hurricane-affected Louisiana state waters has created special environmental conditions that make trawling with TED-equipped nets impracticable. Therefore, the AA issues this notification to authorize the use of restricted tow times as an alternative to the use of TEDs in specific Louisiana state waters (from 91° 23′ West longitude eastward to the Louisiana/Mississippi border, and seaward out 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers)). Tow times must be limited to no more than 55 minutes until October 31, and no more than 75 minutes thereafter, as measured from the time that the trawl doors enter the water until they are removed from the water. For a trawl that is not attached to a door, the tow time begins at the time the codend enters the water and ends at the time the codend is emptied of catch on deck.

NMFS encourages shrimp trawlers in the affected areas to continue to use TEDs if they can do so effectively, even though they are authorized under this action to use restricted tow times.

NMFS gear experts have provided several general operational recommendations to fishers to maximize the debris exclusion ability of TEDs that may allow some fishers to continue using TEDs without resorting to restricted tow times. To exclude debris, NMFS recommends the use of hard TEDs made of either solid rod or of hollow pipe that incorporate a bent angle at the escape opening, in a bottom-opening configuration. In addition, the installation angle of a hard TED in the trawl extension is an important performance element in excluding debris from the trawl. High installation angles can trap debris either on or in front of the bars of the TED; NMFS recommends an installation angle of 45°, relative to the normal horizontal flow of water through the trawl, to optimize the TED's ability to exclude turtles and debris. Furthermore, the use of accelerator funnels, which are allowable modifications to hard TEDs, is not recommended in areas with heavy amounts of debris or vegetation. Lastly, the webbing flap that is usually installed to cover the turtle escape opening may be modified to help exclude debris quickly: The webbing flap can either be cut horizontally to shorten it so that it does not overlap the frame of the TED or be slit in a fore-and-aft direction to facilitate the exclusion of debris. The use of the double cover flap TED will also aid in debris exclusion.

All of these recommendations represent legal configurations of TEDs for shrimpers fishing in the affected areas. This action does not authorize any other departure from the TED requirements, including any illegal modifications to TEDs. In particular, if TEDs are installed in trawl nets, they may not be sewn shut.

The authorization provided by this rule applies to all shrimp trawlers that would otherwise be required to use TEDs in accordance with the requirements of 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2) who are operating in hurricane-affected Louisiana state waters ( i.e., from 91° 23′ West longitude eastward to the Louisiana/Mississippi border, and seaward out 3 nautical miles (5.6 kilometers)) for a period of 30 days. Through this temporary rule, shrimp trawlers may choose either restricted tow times or TEDs to comply with the sea turtle conservation regulations, as prescribed above.

The AA, at any time, may withdraw or modify this temporary authorization to use tow time restrictions in lieu of TEDs through publication of a document in the Federal Register , if necessary to ensure adequate protection of endangered and threatened sea turtles. Under this procedure, the AA may modify the affected area or impose any necessary additional or more stringent measures, including more restrictive tow times, synchronized tow times, or withdrawal of the authorization if the AA determines that the alternative authorized by this rule is not sufficiently protecting turtles or no longer needed. The AA may also terminate this authorization if information from enforcement, state authorities, or NMFS indicates compliance cannot be monitored effectively. This authorization will expire automatically on December 6, 2021, unless it is explicitly extended through another notification published in the Federal Register .

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The AA has determined that this action is necessary to respond to an environmental situation to allow more efficient fishing for shrimp, while providing effective protection for endangered and threatened sea turtles pursuant to the ESA and applicable regulations.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to comment on this rule. The AA finds that unusually high amounts of debris are creating special environmental conditions that make trawling with TED-equipped nets impracticable. Prior notice and opportunity to comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest in this instance because providing notice and comment would prevent the agency from providing the affected industry relief from the effects of Hurricane Ida in a timely manner, while continuing to provide effective protection for sea turtles.

For the same reasons, the AA finds that there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Since prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this action by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. are inapplicable.

The Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires that NMFS issue a notice in the Federal Register of the upcoming year's quota, even if the quota remains unchanged from the previous year. At its June 2021 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council recommended no change to the quota specifications for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs for the 2022 fishing year. We are announcing 2022 quota levels of 3.4 million bushels (bu) (181 million L) for Atlantic surfclams, 5.36 million bu (288 million L) for ocean quahogs, and 100,000 Maine bu (3.52 million L) for Maine ocean quahogs. These quotas were published as projected 2022 limits in the Federal Register on May 13, 2021 (86 FR 26186). This rule establishes these quotas as unchanged from 2021 and final.

The regulations at 50 CFR 648.75(b)(3) allow the Regional Administrator to annually suspend the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams unless discard, catch, and biological sampling data indicate that 30 percent or more of the Atlantic surfclam resource have a shell length less than 4.75 inches (in) (121 millimeters (mm)) and the overall reduced size is not attributable to harvest from beds where growth of the individual clams has been reduced because of density-dependent factors. At its June 2021 meeting, the Council recommended the Regional Administrator suspend the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams for the 2022 fishing year. Commercial surfclam data for 2021 indicated that 16.9 percent of the overall commercial landings were composed of surfclams that were less than the 4.75-in (121-mm) default minimum size.

Based on the information available, the Regional Administrator concurs with the Council's recommendation and is suspending the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams for the upcoming fishing year (January 1 through December 31, 2022).

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this rule is consistent with the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The public was given the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the 2021-2026 specifications (86 FR 9901, February 17, 2021), including the projected 2022 specifications, which remain unchanged. Delaying this action would prolong public uncertainty about the final quotas for the 2022 fishing year. The public and industry participants expect this action because we previously alerted the public that we would conduct this review in interim years of the multi-year specifications and announce the final quotas before or as close as possible to the January 1 start of the fishing year. This rule could not be published earlier because of the time necessary to collect data and conduct the analysis to support suspending the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams.

This rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.

The fishery for Atlantic cobia in Federal waters is managed under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 697. Separate migratory groups of cobia are managed in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. Atlantic cobia is managed from Georgia through New York. The southern management boundary for Atlantic cobia is a line that extends due east of the Florida and Georgia state border at 30°42′45.6″ N latitude. The northern management boundary for Atlantic cobia is the jurisdictional boundary between the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, as specified in 50 CFR 600.105(a).

The final rule to implement Amendment 31 to the FMP for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region and Amendment 1 to the Interstate FMP removed Atlantic cobia from Federal management under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and transitioned the management of Atlantic cobia in Federal waters to the ASMFC under the Atlantic Coastal Act (84 FR 4733, February 19, 2019). All weights described in this rule are in round and eviscerated weight, combined.

On September 2, 2021, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 1 and Addendum 1 and requested public comment (86 FR 49284). The proposed rule and Amendment 1 and Addendum 1 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in Amendment 1 and Addendum 1 and implemented by this final rule is described below.

The ASMFC approved Amendment 1 to the Interstate FMP in 2019 and Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 in 2020. Amendment 1 and Addendum 1 provide for an increase in the commercial quota and a revision to the process for a commercial in-season closure. This final rule serves to implement certain measures in Federal waters contained within Amendment 1 and Addendum 1.

In 2020, a new Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) assessment was completed for Atlantic cobia (SEDAR 58). SEDAR 58 indicated that Atlantic cobia was not overfished or undergoing overfishing, and that the allowable harvest could be increased based on updated commercial and recreational catch estimates. Based on the results of the SEDAR 58 and new stock projections from February 2020, in October of 2020, the ASFMC approved an increase to the Atlantic cobia annual total harvest quota of 80,112 fish for the 2020-2022 fishing seasons. Through Amendment 1 and Addendum 1, the ASMFC also adjusted the commercial and recreational allocation percentages and changed the methodology used to close the commercial sector when the quota is reached.

The ASMFC revised the total Atlantic cobia quota sector allocations from 8 percent to 4 percent for the commercial harvest and from 92 percent to 96 percent for the recreational harvest, to account for changes in the recreational catch estimates from the Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort Survey. When defining these allocations in terms of numbers of fish, the updated allocations would result in a commercial quota of 3,204 fish and a recreational quota of 76,908 fish. As described in Amendment 1 and Addendum 1, using an average commercial weight of 22.82 lb (10.35 kg), this is equivalent to a commercial quota of 73,116 lb (33,165 kg) in round and gutted weight, combined. In addition, the ASMFC would closely monitor commercial landings to ensure the commercial quota is not exceeded.

This final rule modifies the commercial quota and the process for closing the commercial sector in Federal waters when the quota is reached.

The current Atlantic cobia commercial quota of 50,000 lb (22,680 kg) was established through the final rule to implement Amendment 1 to the Interstate FMP (84 FR 4733, February 19, 2019). As a result of SEDAR 58, this final rule increases the commercial quota to 73,116 lb (33,165 kg). The ASMFC is responsible for monitoring of commercial landings during the fishing year.

The current process requires an in-season closure in Federal waters during the fishing year for the commercial sector when the quota is reached or projected to be reached. When the NMFS Science and Research Director estimates that the sum of commercial landings (cobia that are sold) reaches or is projected to reach the commercial quota, then NMFS will prohibit the sale and purchase of cobia for the remainder of that fishing year (a commercial closure). For example, in 2020, NMFS projected that commercial landings would reach the commercial quota on November 6, and therefore, NMFS closed the commercial sector on November 6, 2020, through December 31, 2020 (85 FR 70085; November 4, 2020).

This final rule retains the possibility of an in-season closure if commercial landings reach the quota. This final rule also changes the closure language in the current regulations regarding in-season quota monitoring so that commercial landings will be monitored by the ASMFC and not by NMFS. Currently, NMFS monitors the commercial quota and closes the commercial sector when the quota is met or projected to be met. The new process transfers quota monitoring responsibility to the ASMFC. Because Atlantic cobia are primarily landed in state waters, the ASFMC determined that they are better suited to monitor cobia landings and ensure the risk of early closures is minimized. During the fishing year, if the ASMFC estimates that the sum of commercial landings (cobia that are sold), reaches or is projected to reach the commercial quota, then the ASMFC would notify NMFS of the need for a commercial closure of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and NMFS would close the commercial sector. During any such closure, the commercial harvest, sale, trade, barter, or purchase of Atlantic cobia would be prohibited for the remainder of that fishing year. When considering this increase to the commercial quota, and when compared to cobia landings in previous fishing years, NMFS estimates that a commercial in-season closure is still possible as a result of the commercial quota being reached, but expects that any such closure would occur later in the fishing year than occurred under the previous commercial quota.

NMFS may consider additional commercial and recreational regulatory changes to be implemented through rulemaking for Atlantic cobia as described in Amendment 1 and Addendum 1 in future rulemaking.

NMFS received nine comments from individuals and a fishery management organization during the public comment period on the proposed rule. NMFS acknowledges the comments in favor of the actions in the proposed rule and agrees with them. Comments received that were outside the scope of the proposed rule are not responded to in this final rule. Comments that opposed the actions contained in the proposed rule are summarized below, along with NMFS' responses.

Comment 1: The commercial quota should not be increased. The Atlantic cobia stock is under high fishing pressure and increasing the commercial quota would hurt the stock's recovery progress.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the commercial quota should not be increased. In 2020, a new SEDAR assessment was completed for Atlantic cobia. The stock assessment indicated that Atlantic cobia was not overfished or undergoing overfishing, and that the allowable harvest could be increased based on updated commercial and recreational catch estimates. In response to the stock assessment, the ASFMC developed Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 and the Interstate FMP. Addendum 1 increased the Atlantic cobia annual total and sector harvest quotas. NMFS does not expect increased commercial catch levels to result in negative impacts to the Atlantic cobia stock.

Comment 2: The commercial quota should not be increased. Commercial harvest limits are constantly increasing while the recreational sector harvest limits keep getting reduced.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the commercial quota shouldn't be increased when compared to recreational harvest. As a result of the latest stock assessment, Addendum 1 increased the harvest quotas for both the commercial and recreational sectors. Addendum 1 also changed sector allocations from 8 percent commercial to 4 percent commercial and from 92 percent recreational to 96 percent recreational. The Atlantic cobia recreational sector continues to be allocated the majority of the available total stock quota. The ASMFC made the change to the sector allocations to account for the revised recreational catch estimates from the Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort Survey. As a result of the updated stock assessment and changes to the sector allocations, the recreational quota increased from 22,142 fish to 76,908 fish and the commercial quota increased from 2,191 fish to 3,204 fish. Therefore the commercial and recreational quota increases are based on the results of the recent assessment and the revised sector allocations as determined by the ASMFC.

Comment 3: In response to the increased Atlantic cobia stock size, the for-hire charter sector should be allowed to keep smaller than 36 inch (91.4 cm) fish or allow 2 fish per person, instead of increasing the commercial quota.

Response: The actions contained in this final rule for the commercial quota increase and revising the process for closing the commercial sector in Federal waters are taken from the request of the ASMFC to NMFS and contained in Amendment 1 and Addendum 1. NMFS acknowledges that within Amendment 1 and Addendum 1, the ASMFC has proposed additional recreational management measures for Federal waters that include size limits and bag and vessel limits based on the existing requirements for each state represented by the ASMFC. NMFS is evaluating those additional management measures and may propose them in a future rulemaking, but at this time changes to size limits and bag and vessel limits are outside the scope of this final rule.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 1 and Addendum 1, the Interstate FMP, the Atlantic Coastal Act, the applicable provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No significant issues were raised by public comments related to the economic impacts on small entities, and no changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

NMFS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date for this final rule because this rule relieves a restriction by increasing the commercial quota for Atlantic cobia. In addition, delaying implementation of the quota increase is contrary to the public interest. As described in Amendment 1 and Addendum 1, the ASMFC increased the commercial quota based upon the results of the latest stock assessment and is intended to be used in combination with other measures to achieve optimum yield for the stock. Not waiving the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness of this final rule would result in reduced opportunities for fishermen to harvest the quota and achieve optimum yield this year, and could also result in an early closure of the commercial fishery if the quota is not increased. A closure in 2021 that occurred as a result of the current quota being met, prior to the increased quota being implemented, would not be consistent with the intent of the ASMFC and Amendment 1 and Addendum 1, and is contrary to the public interest. Therefore, a delay in the date of effectiveness of this final rule would diminish the social and economic benefits this rule provides for Atlantic cobia fishermen.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 697 is amended as follows: