The Board is authorized by Congress, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 751-755, to hear and decide cases brought by Government Accountability Office (GAO) employees concerning various personnel matters, including adverse or performance-based actions, claims of discrimination, alleged prohibited personnel practices, and labor-management relations. The Board also exercises authority over GAO's EEO process at the agency. The Board's procedural regulations applicable to GAO appear at 4 CFR parts 27 and 28. The Board is revising two sections of these regulations to ensure consistency with current law and to address a process ambiguity in the current language. The Board is also replacing gendered pronouns with gender-neutral pronouns.

The Board is amending section 28.95 by specifically referencing the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1), and the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act (42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1) in its definition of prohibited EEO discrimination. The addition of the reference to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is to clarify that the prohibition on discrimination in wages on the basis of sex derives from the Equal Pay Act of 1963's amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)).

The additions of the references to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 and the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act in paragraph (e) and new paragraph (f) of 4 CFR 28.95 reflect types of discrimination that became prohibited on the effective dates of the respective statutes but had not yet been codified into the Board's regulations.

Similarly, the revision of the definition of prohibited discrimination in new paragraph (h) of 4 CFR 28.95 includes a list of activities that may not form the basis for employment actions. Discrimination in retaliation for protected EEO activity became prohibited on the effective dates of the respective EEO statutes. This revision codifies existing prohibitions and does not create a new cause of action.

Five sets of comments responded to the proposed changes to this section. The Women and Gender Liaison Group and the GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE Local 1921, supported the Board's codification of employee protections in the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

The National Employment Lawyers Association commented that “[t]he edit in proposed 4 CFR § 28.95(c) is legally incorrect, since sex-basis pay discrimination claims do not sound solely in the Equal Pay Act (EPA). Instead, sex-basis pay discrimination claims concurrently sound in both the EPA and in Title VII. . . .” The Board thanks the National Employment Lawyers Association for this comment. The proposed amendment was not intended to give the impression that § 28.95(c) is the only section under which a claim of sex-basis pay discrimination may be brought. Section 28.95(a), among other things, already includes in its definition of prohibited discrimination claims under Title VII on the basis of sex.

The National Employment Lawyers Association commented, “GAO should consider modifying proposed 4 CFR § 28.95(d) to also include claims for improper collection, archival and/or dissemination of employees' confidential medical information.” The Board thanks the National Employment Lawyers Association for this suggestion. The Board will not consider this suggestion at this time because the Board has not proposed any amendments to § 28.95(d) in its proposed rule, and the Board's stakeholders have not had an opportunity to comment on it.

Both GAO's Office of General Counsel and the PAB's Office of General Counsel (PAB/OGC) suggested the Board replace the term “employment action” in § 28.95(h). GAO's Office of General Counsel indicated that “employment action” is not a commonly used term in the context of retaliation and suggested that “adverse” or “materially adverse” employment action should be used instead. The PAB/OGC suggested that “employment action” be replaced with a broader term, such as “retaliatory action,” “retaliation,” or “employer action.”

Based on these comments, the Board has accepted these suggestions and replaced “employment action” with “materially adverse action” in the final rule. Materially adverse action is a broader term used by the Supreme Court in the EEO context, and it covers actions that go beyond the terms and conditions of employment. See Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).

The National Employment Lawyers Association commented that “GAO should also consider modifying proposed 4 CFR § 28.95(h) to include other activity likely to have a chilling effect as giving rise to a possible retaliation claim. In particular, GAO should consider adopting the EEOC's per se reprisal line of cases, under Binseel and its progeny, which recognize a freestanding per se violation claim for comments or conduct [that] are likely to have a chilling effect on employees' protected EEO activity. . . .”

The Board considered this comment in deciding to replace the phrase “employment action” with “materially adverse action.” The Supreme Court described materially adverse action in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006) to include an action that “could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” This language is intended to include activities, including nonemployment actions likely to have a chilling effect on making or supporting a claim of discrimination.

GAO's Office of General Counsel also suggested replacing the term “unlawful employment practice” in § 28.95(h) because it is not a commonly used term in the context of retaliation. The term “unlawful employment practice” is based on guidance contained in the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. The guidance states, “[i]n addition to participation, an individual is protected from retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful under the EEO laws.” Therefore, the Board considered this suggestion, but elected to keep the language in the proposed rule.

GAO's Office of General Counsel commented that “the reference to a `claim of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h)' in § 28.98(e)(1) also is not clear.” The Board intends “a claim of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h)” to mean an EEO-related retaliation claim. The use of “retaliation” here is admittedly redundant because all claims that could be raised under § 28.95(h) are necessarily retaliation claims. The inclusion of it here is designed to help individuals better recognize that § 28.95(h) claims are retaliation claims because the term “retaliation” is not used in § 28.95(h).

The final rule also resolves ambiguity over when retaliation claims related to discrimination on one of the EEO-protected bases, including claims of retaliation under prohibited personnel practices laws like 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9), must go through GAO's EEO process pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 before a charge containing these claims can be filed with the PAB/OGC and a petition containing them can be filed with the Board. Retaliation claims related to discrimination on one of the EEO-protected bases involving a removal, a suspension of more than 14 days, or a furlough of not more than 30 days continue to have the option, pursuant to 4 CFR 28.98(c), of filing a discrimination complaint with GAO pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 or bypassing the EEO process and filing a charge directly with the PAB/OGC. The final rule revisions clarify that other retaliation claims related to discrimination on one of the EEO-protected bases may also bypass GAO's EEO process if they are not reasonably related to the filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2. The PAB/GC will be empowered to decide whether retaliation claims related to discrimination on one of the EEO-protected bases are reasonably related to filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2. If the claims are reasonably related to the filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2, the PAB/OGC would inform the individual that they need to file their complaint with GAO pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 before the PAB/OGC is permitted to process their charge on these allegations. If the PAB/GC determines the claims are not reasonably related to filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2, the PAB/OGC would advise the individual that the charge containing these claims can be processed by the PAB/OGC without delay. The purpose of giving this unreviewable discretion to the PAB/GC is to give certainty to individuals that their claims may be processed immediately by the PAB/OGC without fear of having the claims subsequently dismissed for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies contained in GAO Order 2713.2.

Finally, the final rule amendments allow the PAB/OGC to hold in abeyance nondiscrimination allegations while related discrimination allegations are being pursued through GAO's EEO process. Once the discrimination complaint resolution process concludes, or the individual opts out, both types of claims could be investigated together. The PAB/GC is to utilize this provision when the claims are so related that the PAB/GC determines it would be most appropriate to conduct a single investigation into them. The PAB/GC will have discretion to revisit this decision at any time and no longer hold a claim in abeyance. For purposes of 4 CFR 28.12(g), the length of time a claim is held in abeyance will count toward the 180-day period, after which a charging party may opt out of the PAB/OGC's investigation and file a petition with the Board.

All seven commenters to the proposed rule addressed section 28.98. The Board has made several changes based on these comments. These changes are discussed in greater detail in this section.

The GAO Office of General Counsel requested clarification on ”what is meant by `processes a complaint' ( i.e., accepts the complaint for investigation, completes the investigation, issues a FAD, etc.).” The language in § 28.98(b) is intended to have the same meaning as the previous version of this section, which stated, “A charge relating to GAO's disposition of any individual EEO complaint may be filed with the Board's General Counsel at the following times . . .” The final rule changes the language to the active voice and describes the EEO process. It should be interpreted in the same way as the previous § 28.98(b).

The PAB/OGC suggested adding “certain” to the title of 4 CFR 28.98(c) so that it reads “Special rules for certain adverse and performance-based actions.” The PAB/OGC was concerned that there could be confusion over whether “materially adverse action” in 4 CFR 28.98(h) is limited to the commonly known Chapter 75 adverse actions listed in 4 CFR 28.98(c)—namely a removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough of not more than 30 days. The Board's addition of the word “certain” to the title of 4 CFR 28.98(c) is intended to connote that adverse actions listed in 4 CFR 28.98(c) are only a subset of the “materially adverse actions” covered by 4 CFR 28.98(h).

All seven commenters submitted comments on § 28.98(e). The Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness (O&I), which is responsible for GAO's discrimination complaint resolution process under GAO Order 2713.2, appeared to oversimplify the proposed § 28.98(e) process when it wrote that “the forum for processing certain retaliation claims would depend on whether the Board's General Counsel determines that the claim relates to retaliation `for filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2' ” The § 28.98(e) process was designed to give individuals the ability to choose the forum where they want to bring their EEO-based retaliation claims. The key is that individuals choose their desired forum. The PAB/GC does not make this determination for them. The PAB/GC's role is to determine whether an individual's requested forum can be accommodated.

The most commonly raised issue was a request to clarify what claims relate to retaliation for filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2. Two commenters specifically asked whether informal contact with an EEO counselor would be related to filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2.

The phrase “relates to retaliation for filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2” is intended to include retaliation for any task reasonably related to the discrimination complaint process listed in GAO Order 2713.2. Such task need not be limited to participating in the formal complaint process. As such, it should be interpreted to include retaliation for engaging in pre-complaint EEO counseling with O&I. To make clear that the “relates to retaliation” language is not to be strictly interpreted, the Board has added “reasonably” to this phrase so that it reads “reasonably relates to retaliation” in §§ 28.98(e), (e)(1)(i), and (e)(1)(ii).

Several commenters requested examples of actions that relate to retaliation for filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 and examples of ones that would not. Examples of actions that would reasonably be related to filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 include: (1) having previously filed a discrimination complaint with O&I pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2, (2) having previously filed a disability complaint with O&I pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2, (3) having provided testimony in another employee's discrimination claim filed with O&I pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2, and (4) having engaged in pre-complaint counseling with O&I pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2. Examples of actions that would not reasonably be related to filing a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 include: (1) filing a complaint against an individual with O&I in the anti-harassment portal, (2) filing a reasonable accommodation request with GAO's Reasonable Accommodation Team, (3) providing testimony resulting from another employee's filing a complaint in the anti-harassment portal with O&I, (4) being associated with, such as a family member or friend, an individual who filed a discrimination complaint with O&I pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2, (5) refusing to follow a discriminatory directive, and (6) opposing discrimination by speaking up at a meeting against a comment that denigrated an ethnic group.

O&I questioned whether the Board considered replacing “relates to retaliation for filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint filed pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2” with “participating in an O&I process,” which would include both the discrimination complaint resolution process under GAO Order 2713.2 as well as GAO's Anti-Harassment Policy. Yes, the Board did consider this option but decided against requiring retaliation claims related to all O&I activities to be processed first by O&I. The Board did not want individuals with EEO-related retaliation claims to be forced to go through the discrimination complaint resolution process when their claims were insufficiently related to the discrimination complaint resolution process. A former GAO employee commented that having the choice to bypass O&I in such situations was “extraordinarily important and should have been made sooner.” The former employee detailed the frustrations they experienced when their claim was required to be reviewed by O&I before it could be filed with the Board. The GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE Local 1921, also supported this change.

O&I requested how a hypothetical would be handled where an individual has an EEO-based retaliation claim that does not relate to filing or assisting with a discrimination complaint pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2 but also contains other bases of discrimination ( e.g., sex and race) that involve the same personnel action. Assuming the individual wanted the EEO-related retaliation claim reviewed by the PAB/OGC and not O&I, the employee would still be required to file the other discrimination claims with O&I pursuant to the discrimination complaint resolution process.

After the individual filed the discrimination claims with O&I pursuant to Order 2713.2, the sex and race discrimination claims could later be included in a charge filed with the PAB/OGC at any of the times listed in 4 CFR 28.98(b). While the sex and race discrimination claims were going through O&I's discrimination complaint resolution process, the PAB/GC would have the choice of when to begin the investigation into the EEO-based retaliation claim. Because that claim shares a common personnel action with the sex and race discrimination claims being reviewed by O&I, the PAB/GC could hold the retaliation claim in abeyance pursuant to 4 CFR 28.98(f) if the PAB/GC determines it would be more appropriate to wait for the sex and race discrimination claims to have completed the discrimination complaint resolution process and investigate all three claims together.

In the context of this same hypothetical, O&I asked, “[h]ow should the General Counsel respond if the individual also raises other discrimination claims, such as harassment based on disability?” If the PAB/GC were to receive a harassment based on a disability claim, the Board would first expect the PAB/GC to determine if the individual were attempting to allege discrimination on the basis of disability. If so, the PAB/OGC could investigate the claim immediately if it involved a removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough of not more than 30 days. 4 CFR 28.98(c). If it involved a different personnel action, the PAB/OGC would instruct the individual to file a claim with O&I. 4 CFR 28.98(a). If the individual was not attempting to allege discrimination based on disability, the Board expects the PAB/OGC to analyze the claim under all statutes within its jurisdiction and make the individual aware of the anti-harassment protections offered by O&I.

Two commenters made suggestions regarding the length of time the PAB/GC has to make a § 28.98(e) determination. The GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE Local 1921, suggested adding a timeline during which the PAB/GC must make this determination. The National Employment Lawyers Association suggested that the date on which a § 28.98(e)(1) claim is filed with the PAB/OGC should be treated as the filing date with O&I for the subsequent filing under the discrimination complaint resolution process. Both commenters appear concerned that a delay by the PAB/GC in making a § 28.98(e) determination may prevent a timely filing with O&I. The Board's Executive Director plans to contact the Managing Director of O&I to find a mutually acceptable resolution to this potential problem. The Board expects these discussions to fully resolve this issue. However, if O&I does not accept a § 28.98(e)(1) complaint on timeliness grounds where an individual acted reasonably yet could not meet O&I's filing deadline, the individual should refile the complaint with the PAB/OGC. The Board expects that in such a situation, it would find “good cause” under § 28.16(b) to waive its requirement that O&I review the claim. The Board has no intention of allowing an individual to forfeit their claim by undertaking a process the Board created when they experience delays outside of their control.

The GAO Office of General Counsel indicated that “the reference to a `claim of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h)' in § 28.98(e)(1) also is not clear.” “A claim of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h)” means an EEO-related retaliation claim. The use of “retaliation” here is admittedly redundant because all claims that could be raised under § 28.95(h) are necessarily retaliation claims. The inclusion of it here is designed to help individuals better recognize that § 28.95(h) claims are retaliation claims because the term “retaliation” is not used in § 28.95(h).

The GAO Office of General Counsel commented on the reference to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) in § 28.98(e)(1). “This paragraph concerns `a claim of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h), including the prohibited personnel practices listed in 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9).' The reference to 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9) appears to be overbroad. Section 2302(b)(9) lists several different prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation for filing whistleblower retaliation claims and disclosing information to an Inspector General. A `claim of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h),' however, is limited to EEO-related protected activity. The reference to section 2302(b)(9) therefore should be narrowed given the context.”

The Board recognizes that 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) broadly covers reprisal for engaging in protected activities. Some of these protected activities cannot relate to the EEO laws, including disclosing information to the Inspector General or refusing to obey an order that would require a law, rule, or regulation violation. The reference to 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(9) is intended to include only those claims that can be brought under sec. 2302(b)(9) that are related to the EEO process. It has no applicability to non-EEO sec. 2302(b)(9) claims. For example, if an employee brought a claim to the PAB/OGC that they were being retaliated against for disclosing information about a non-EEO topic to GAO's Office of Inspector General, § 28.98(e) would not apply, and no analysis under § 28.98(e) would be performed. Section 28.98(e)(1) only applies to “claim[s] of retaliation that could be raised under § 28.95(h).” In this example, § 28.95(h) does not apply because the claim is not related to “opposing any unlawful employment practice, or for participating in any manner in an investigation, hearing, or in any stage of an administrative or judicial proceeding, under any of the [EEO laws].”

The GAO Office of General Counsel commented that it was unclear what information the PAB/GC could use in making a § 28.98(e)(1) determination. “[The GAO Office of General Counsel] suggest[s] that this section should delineate the basis on which the determination is made: the employee's submission(s), an investigation, or something else. It is also unclear how the PAB General Counsel's decision is communicated to the employee.”

The Board expects the PAB/GC will primarily rely on the information submitted by the charging party's description of their allegation. The Board does not anticipate any investigation will need to be performed for the PAB/GC to make this determination, but if some investigation is necessary, the final rule's amendments would not prohibit it. The final rule's amendments do not address the method of communication of a § 28.98(e) decision to an employee and defer to the PAB/GC on the best manner to perform this task.

The GAO Office of General Counsel comments that “[t]he determination of the General Counsel should be reviewable as it can have significant implications for employees and the exercise of their rights. The General Counsel's decision also affects GAO with respect to investigating and resolving employee claims. Accordingly, we believe there should be a mechanism for the Board to review this determination.”

The Board agrees that § 28.98(e) determinations will have significant implications for employees and the exercise of their rights. Notably, § 28.98(e) will take away no employee rights. Individuals retain the same right to bring EEO claims directly to O&I pursuant to the discrimination complaint resolution process. The final rule attempts to clarify that certain EEO-related retaliation claims must be brought to O&I first. The discrimination complaint resolution process must proceed before the PAB/OGC can investigate them. Other EEO-related retaliation claims may be brought directly to the PAB/OGC and investigated without going through the discrimination complaint resolution process. The PAB/GC is tasked with applying the Board's standard to determine which EEO-related retaliation claims fall into each category.

The Board acknowledges that if the PAB/GC were to determine that a claim falls under § 28.98(e)(1)(ii), GAO would be directly affected as these claims would no longer go through O&I's discrimination complaint review process where they could potentially be resolved. Specifically, GAO would be required to investigate the claims much earlier than if the claims were processed pursuant to the discrimination complaint review process. The Board considered various options on reviewability but elected to give the PAB/GC the sole authority to make § 28.98(e)(1) determinations for three reasons. First, other than stay requests the PAB has historically not been involved in the PAB/OGC's processes before a petition is filed with the Board. Second, § 28.98(e)(1) was designed to give individuals certainty and allow § 28.98(e)(1)(ii) claims to be investigated more expediently without having to go through the O&I process, which can be quite lengthy. A review mechanism would defeat this purpose. Third, the Board Members do not want to be prejudiced by the parties' descriptions of legal claims and evidence before a petition is even filed, because they may subsequently be assigned the case as an Administrative Judge or review it in an en banc appeal.

The PAB/OGC requested that the word “instruct” in § 28.98(e)(1)(i) be replaced with “advise” so the relevant portion would read, “the Board's Office of General Counsel shall advise the charging party to file the claim as a complaint of discrimination pursuant to GAO Order 2713.2.” The PAB/OGC believes the word “instruct” was too strong, and by replacing it with “advise,” the PAB/OGC would be able to address § 28.98(e)(1)(i) claims similarly to how it already addresses EEO discrimination claims where the charging party has not exhausted the O&I process. The Board considered and agreed with this suggestion.

GAO's Office of General Counsel and the PAB/OGC commented that the reference to § 28.95(g) in § 28.98(e)(2) should be a reference to § 28.95(h). The Board thanks the commenters for identifying the error and has made this change.

The PAB/OGC commented that “Section 28.98(f) contains the sub-title, `Claims related to EEO matters pending with EEO.' Instead of referencing `matters pending with EEO,' the PAB/ OGC suggests that `EEO' be replaced with `GAO's Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness' or `GAO's EEO Office'.” The Board considered and agreed with the suggestion, finding that it more accurately described the section than the previous title. The Board opted for the second of the two suggestions, replacing “EEO” with “GAO's EEO Office.” The Board concluded that more individuals would understand a reference to “EEO Office” than O&I, which is a name and office unique to GAO. Additionally, O&I's jurisdiction concerns more than EEO matters and the use of “GAO's EEO Office” instead of “GAO's Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness” more accurately describes the type of claims addressed in § 28.98(f)(3).

The GAO Office of General Counsel commented, “Similar to our comment on § 28.98(e)(1) above, it is unclear what information the PAB General Counsel would use to determine whether a claim is `sufficiently related to a discrimination complaint.'” The Board anticipates that the PAB General Counsel would primarily rely upon information submitted by the charging party but could request and consider information from O&I about the potentially related claims.

The GAO Office of General Counsel had several questions related to holding a claim in abeyance. “What happens if the employee decides not to file a charge under § 28.98(b) for the related claim?” If no charge is filed regarding a claim, the PAB/OGC will not investigate that claim. “Is there a timeframe for the abeyance, or may the claim be held in abeyance indefinitely?” The PAB/GC should not hold a claim in abeyance longer than the time it takes O&I (GAO's EEO Office) to process the sufficiently related claim(s) pursuant to the discrimination complaint review process, which culminates with either O&I's dismissal of the claim or a Final Agency Decision. “Must the charging party/GAO be notified of the General Counsel's determination to hold a claim in abeyance and/or to resume an investigation?” The PAB/OGC is expected to notify the charging party and GAO of both the GC's determination to hold a claim in abeyance as well as to resume an investigation. The final rule's amendments are silent on the method by which this information is to be transmitted, which is intended to give the PAB/OGC discretion on how to communicate these notifications.

In addition to the amendments to § 28.95 and § 28.98, the final rule replaces the gendered pronouns in all the Board's regulations with gender-neutral ones. The Women and Gender Liaison Group and the GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE Local 1921, supported these changes.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Government Accountability Office amends title 4, chapter I, subchapter B, part 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

On May 7, 2024, the FAA issued final special conditions for the Boeing Model 757-200 airplanes, as modified by H4, which published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2024 (89 FR 42341). The FAA inevertantly published these special conditions referencing an incorrect type certificate number in the applicability section.

In the Federal Register of May 15, 2024 (89 FR 42341), make the following correction:

On page 42343, in the first column, in the Applicability section, line 7, correct “FAA STC ST00102IB” to read “A2NM”.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2024 (89 FR 7305). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0090, dated May 4, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0090), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The EASA AD advises of a report where a TR pedal control was blocked during flight. Subsequent investigation found interference between the cable tie head of the TR actuator harness and the pin fastener of the tail gearbox cowling. To address this unsafe condition, the manufacturer issued service information to provide instructions for inspecting the positioning of the cable ties on the yaw harness.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection for proper positioning of the TR actuator harness and cable ties installation and, depending on the results, accomplishing corrective action, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0090. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-0038.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0090 which requires visually inspecting the position of the cable tie heads of the harness and corrective actions (replacing the cable ties) if necessary.

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

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. AS365-22.00.17, Revision 1, dated June 27, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for accomplishing a one-time check of the position of the two cable tie heads in relation to the dzus prisoner of the right fairing of the tail gearbox and replacing the cable ties if necessary.

EASA AD 2023-0090 requires accomplishing the inspection within 165 flight hours, whereas this AD requires accomplishing the inspection within 100 hours time-in-service.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 29 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Visually inspecting the position of the cable ties on the yaw harness and interpreting the results takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $2,465 for the U.S. fleet.

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

If required, removing and replacing a cable tie takes about 0.5 work-hour and parts cost up to about $10 for an estimated cost of $53 per cable tie replacement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2023-2493 in the Federal Register (89 FR 1851; January 11, 2024), proposing to amend Jet Route J-89 and VOR Federal Airway V-161, and establish Canadian RNAV Routes Q-834 and T-765 in U.S. airspace due to the planned decommissioning of the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC NAVAID in support of NAV CANADA's NAVAID Modernization Program. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal.

One non-substantive comment, outside the scope of this action, was received.

Prior to publishing the NPRM for this action, the FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2326 in the Federal Register (88 FR 85519; December 8, 2023) which also proposed to establish two Canadian RNAV Route T-765 segments in U.S. airspace. That proposed action was being taken due to NAV CANADA's planned decommissioning of the Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, VOR. The proposed new T-765 route segments in that action were to mitigate the removal of the affected VOR Federal Airway V-133 segments; whereas the proposed T-765 routes segments in this action were proposed to mitigate the removal of the VOR Federal Airway V-161 segments affected by the planned decommissioning of the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC. Both actions would provide route continuity and cross border connectivity with the T-765 route segments being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace.

The FAA has decided to establish all Canadian RNAV Route T-765 route segments in a single docket action and selected Docket No. FAA-2023-2326 to accomplish that. Therefore, the proposed T-765 route segments being established by this action are removed and will be incorporated in the final rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-2326 accordingly. This rule only amends Jet Route J-89 and VOR Federal Airway V-161, and establishes Canadian RNAV Route Q-834 in U.S. airspace.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, Canadian Area Navigation Routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2007, and VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Jet Route J-89 and VOR Federal Airway V-161, and by establishing Canadian RNAV Route Q-834 in U.S. airspace. This action is necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC in support of NAV CANADA's NAVAID Modernization Program. The ATS route actions are described below.

J-89: Prior to this final rule, J-89 extended between the Louisville, KY, VORTAC and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. The route segment between the Duluth, MN, VORTAC and the Winnipeg VORTAC is removed. As amended, the route is changed to now extend between the Louisville VORTAC and the Duluth VORTAC.

Q-834: Q-834 is a new Canadian RNAV route established within U.S. airspace extending between the Duluth, MN, VORTAC and the ALBNG, MN, waypoint (WP) that replaces the “CFHBZ” Computer Navigation Fix (CNF) on the U.S./Canada border. The new RNAV route mitigates the J-89 route segment removal and provides route continuity and cross-border connectivity with the Q-834 route being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace between the ALBNG WP and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, area.

V-161: Prior to this final rule, V-161 extended between the Three Rivers, TX, VORTAC and the Tulsa, OK, VORTAC; between the Butler, MO, VORTAC and the Gopher, MN, VORTAC; and between the International Falls, MN, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway segment between the International Falls VOR/DME and the Winnipeg VORTAC is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Three Rivers VORTAC and the Tulsa VORTAC, and between the Butler VORTAC and the Gopher VORTAC.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal Airway V-161 description in the regulatory text of this final rule are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

NAV CANADA, which operates Canada's civil air navigation service, has been implementing changes to Canada's instrument flight rules navigational infrastructure as part of their NAVAID Modernization Program. This modernization program is designed to enhance the efficiency of Canada's flying operations by taking advantage of performance-based navigation and area navigation avionics capabilities. As part of that modernization program, NAV CANADA decommissioned the Midland, ON, VOR/DME, which provided course guidance for V-360 cross-border connectivity between the United States and Canada, effective December 29, 2022.

After the Midland, ON, VOR/DME was decommissioned by NAV CANADA in 2022, the affected V-360 airway segment within Canadian airspace was removed from the aeronautical charts; however, the rulemaking action to remove the remaining portion of V-360 within United States airspace was not accomplished concurrently. The portion of V-360 that remains within United States airspace is an eight nautical mile segment that extends between the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME and the “CFHMH” Computer Navigation Fix (CNF) which is located on the United States/Canada border. The remaining V-360 airway segment is no longer usable for cross-border connectivity between the United States and Canada since there is no Canadian airway for the airway segment to connect to. Additionally, CNFs are not used for any air traffic control purpose and are not available for pilots to use for point-to-point navigation (proceed direct), filing a flight plan, or in communications between aircraft and air traffic control (ATC).

As such, the remaining portion of V-360 within United States airspace between the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME and the “CFHMH” CNF located on the United States/Canada border serves no useful purpose for ATC or pilots.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. This amendment will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking VOR Federal Airway V-360 due to NAV CANADA having decommissioned the Midland, ON, Canada, VOR/DME NAVAID in 2022. The V-360 airway segment within United States airspace no longer provides cross-border connectivity with any airways or routes within Canada and is unusable by ATC and pilots alike. The airway action is described below.

V-360: Prior to this final rule, V-360 extended between the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME and the Midland, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway is removed in its entirety due to the decommissioning of the Midland, ON, VOR/DME.

This action revoking V-360 does not affect any ATC cross-border operating requirements as the airway segment within United States airspace is unusable due to NAV CANADA having decommissioned the Midland, ON, VOR/DME in 2022; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of revoking VOR Federal Airway V-360 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-0562 in the Federal Register (89 FR 19514; March 19, 2024), proposing to establish Class E airspace at Lincoln Airport, MT. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received in favor of the proposal.

Class E5 airspace area is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71, to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Lincoln Airport, MT.

The airport is transitioning from VFR to IFR operations. Class E airspace is established within a 2.6-mile radius of the airport, within 1.1 miles on either side of the airport's 056° bearing extending 9.2 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2.6 miles on either side of the airport's 251° bearing extending 9 miles southwest of the airport. This airspace contains arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing aircraft until it reaches 1,200 feet above the surface.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-0635 in the Federal Register (89 FR 20879; March 26, 2024), proposing to modify Class E airspace at Yerington Municipal Airport, NV. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E5 airspace area is published in paragraph 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Yerington Municipal Airport, NV.

The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth is modified to a 5.2-mile radius of the airport, within 5.2 miles each side of the airport's 065° bearing extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 8.9 miles northeast of the airport, and within 3 miles each side of the airport's 184° bearing, extending from the 5.2-mile radius to 12.7 miles south of the airport. The modified airspace accommodates IFR arrival operations descending through 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface.

Additionally, the airport's legal description included references to the Mustang and Lovelock very high frequency omnidirectional range and tactical air navigations (VORTAC). These are no longer needed to describe the airspace and have been removed and replaced by the Yerington Airport Reference Point geographical coordinates.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2346 in the Federal Register (88 FR 88283; December 21, 2023), proposing to revoke A-1 in Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Colored Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6009 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking Colored Federal Airway A-1, in its entirety in Alaska. The FAA is taking this action due to the pending decommissioning of its supporting NAVAIDs.

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

The FAA has determined that this airspace action of revoking Colored Federal Airway A-1 in Alaska qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-6.5k, which categorically excludes from further environmental review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2023-2326 in the Federal Register (88 FR 85519; December 8, 2023), proposing to amend VOR Federal Airways V-13, V-133, and V-300, and RNAV Route T-331; establish Canadian RNAV Routes Q-924, T-765, T-776, and T-810 in U.S. airspace; and revoke Jet Route J-533 and VOR Federal Airway V-348 due to the planned decommissioning of the Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, VOR NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

After publishing the NPRM in the Federal Register , the FAA identified an error in the V-300 proposed amendment discussed in The Proposal section of the preamble. In the paragraph addressing V-300 amendments, it stated the FAA proposed to remove the airway segment between the Victoria VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Vancouver VOR/DME to match the airway segment removal action NAV CANADA is taking. However, at the end of the paragraph, it stated that as amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Victoria VOR/DME and the Vancouver VOR/DME, in error. This action removes the V-300 airway segment between the Victoria VOR/DME and the Vancouver VOR/DME as it was published in the proposed regulatory text of the NPRM and is corrected in this final rule.

The FAA also identified an error in the proposed Canadian RNAV Route T-810 description in the proposed regulatory text of the NPRM. The CATGA, MI, Waypoint (WP) listed in the T-810 description incorrectly listed the latitude geographic coordinate for the WP as “lat. 46°28′11.51″ N.” The correct latitude coordinate information for the CATGA WP is “lat. 46°28′11.52″ N” This action corrects the CATGA WP latitude geographic coordinate listed in the Canadian RNAV Route T-810 description in this final rule.

Additionally, subsequent publication of the NPRM, the FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-2493 in the Federal Register (89 FR 1851; January 11, 2024), that also proposed to establish two Canadian RNAV Route T-765 segments in U.S. airspace due to NAV CANADA's planned decommissioning of the Winnipeg, Manitoba (MB), Canada, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) NAVAID. No substantive comments to that NPRM were received. The T-765 route segments in that action were to mitigate the removal of the VOR Federal Airway V-161 segments affected by the Winnipeg VORTAC decommissioning and to provide route continuity and cross border connectivity with the T-765 route segments being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace. The FAA has decided to establish all of the proposed Canadian RNAV Route T-765 segments in a single docket action and selected Docket No. FAA-2023-2326 to accomplish that. Therefore, the T-765 route segment actions proposed in Docket No. FAA-2023-2493 have been removed from that docket and are included in this final rule.

Finally, prior to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2023-0501 in the Federal Register (88 FR 30896; May 15, 2023), amending RNAV Route T-331 by renaming the Squaw Valley, CA, VOR/DME route point to become the Palisades, CA, VOR/DME. That editorial amendment, effective August 10, 2023, did not affect the T-331 route alignment or structure. In the NPRM for this action, the T-331 Palisades, CA, VOR/DME route point was incorrectly listed as the Squaw Valley, CA, VOR/DME. This rule corrects that error by listing the affected T-331 route point as the Palisades VOR/DME.

Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, Canadian Area Navigation Routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2007, VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011, and Canadian Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6013 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-13, V-133, and V-300, and United States RNAV Route T-331; establishing Canadian RNAV Routes Q-924, T-765, T-776, and T-810 in U.S. airspace; and revoking Jet Route J-533 and VOR Federal Airway V-348. This action is being taken due to the planned decommissioning of the Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, VOR by NAV CANADA in support of their NAVAID Modernization Program. The ATS route actions are described below.

J-533: Prior to this final rule, J-533 extended between the Duluth, MN, VORTAC and the U.S./Canada border via the Duluth to Thunder Bay, ON, direct radial. The Jet Route is removed in its entirety.

Q-924: Q-924 is a new Canadian RNAV route established within U.S. airspace extending between the Duluth, MN, VORTAC and the BEKRR, MI, WP that replaces the “MPCEG” Computer Navigation Fix (CNF) on the U.S./Canada border. The new RNAV route mitigates the J-533 revocation and provides route continuity and cross-border connectivity with the Q-924 route segment being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace.

V-13: Prior to this final rule, V-13 extended between the Mc Allen, TX, VOR/DME and the Razorback, AR, VORTAC; between the Butler, MO, VORTAC and the Farmington, MN, VORTAC; and between the Duluth, MN, VORTAC and the Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace outside the United States. The airway segment between the Duluth VORTAC and the Thunder Bay VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Mc Allen VOR/DME and the Razorback VORTAC, and between the Butler VORTAC and the Farmington VORTAC.

V-133: Prior to this final rule, V-133 extended between the intersection of the Charlotte, NC, VOR/DME 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, VOR/DME 197° radials (LINCO Fix) and the Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME; and between the Saginaw, MI, VOR/DME and the Red Lake, ON, Canada, VOR, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway segment between the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME and the International Falls, MN, VOR/DME is removed. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Charlotte VOR/DME 305° and Barretts Mountain VOR/DME 197° radials (LINCO Fix) and the Zanesville VOR/DME, between the Saginaw VOR/DME and the Houghton VOR/DME, and between the International Falls VOR/DME and the Red Lake, ON, VOR. The airspace within Canada continues to be excluded.

V-300: Prior to this final rule, V-300 extended between the Victoria, British Columbia (BC), Canada, VOR/DME and the Vancouver, BC, Canada, VOR/DME; between the Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and the Wiarton, ON, Canada, VOR/DME; and between the Sherbrooke, Quebec (PQ), Canada, VOR and the Fredericton, New Brunswick (NB), Canada, VORTAC, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway segment between the Thunder Bay VOR/DME and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME is removed. Additionally, the airway segment between the Victoria VOR/DME and the Vancouver VOR/DME is removed to match the airway segment removal action NAV CANADA took and was effective November 30, 2023. Finally, the airway segment between the Sherbrooke VOR and the Fredericton VORTAC is removed due to NAV CANADA's actions removing the segments west and east of the portion of the airway segment within U.S. airspace and the previously existing cross-border connectivity no longer provided. As amended, the airway is changed to now extend between the Sault Ste Marie VOR/DME and the Wiarton, ON, VOR/DME. The airspace within Canada continues to be excluded.

V-348: Prior to this final rule, V-348 extended between the Thunder Bay, ON, Canada VOR/DME and the Sudbury, ON, Canada VOR, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway segment between the Thunder Bay VOR/DME and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME is removed due to the planned decommissioning of the Thunder Bay VOR. Additionally, the airway segment between the Sault Ste Marie VOR/DME and the Sudbury VOR is removed due to the Sudbury VOR having been decommissioned by NAV CANADA in 2021. The airway is removed in its entirety.

T-331: Prior to this final rule, T-331 extended between the FRAME, CA, Fix and the MECNU, MN, Fix. The route is extended northward to the BEKRR, MN, WP that replaces the “CFGDB” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the MECNU Fix route point is removed from the route description. The MECNU Fix will remain charted and appear to be on the route but will not be listed as a route point in the part 71 route description. As amended, the route is changed to now extend between the FRAME Fix and the BEKRR WP and provides mitigation for the V-13 airway segment removal.

T-765 : T-765 is a new Canadian RNAV route established within U.S. airspace extending between the Houghton, MI, VOR/DME and the BBLUE, MI, WP that replaces the “KJDRS” CNF on the U.S./Canada border; between the ASIXX, MN, WP that replaces the “KJDPL” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the KORTY, MN, WP that replaces the “CFFQV” CNF on the U.S./Canada border, via the International Falls, MN, VOR/DME; and between the LCROS, MN, WP that replaces the “CFXDP” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the CALDU, MN, WP that replaces the “CFZMG” CNF on the U.S./Canada border. The new RNAV route mitigates the V-133 airway segment removal due to the Thunder Bay VOR being decommissioned and the V-161 airway segment removal due to the Winnipeg, MB, Canada VORTAC being decommissioned as discussed in the Differences from the NPRM section. The new RNAV Route, T-765, segments in U.S. airspace provide route continuity and cross-border connectivity with the T-765 route segments being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace.

T-776: T-776 is a new Canadian RNAV route established within U.S. airspace extending between the KAYCY, MI, WP that replaces the “CFZSV” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the KMNGO, MI, WP that replaces the “CFXKN” CNF on the U.S./Canada border; between the NCOLY, MI, WP that replaces the “CWSKQ” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the RRBEE, MI, WP that replaces the “KJSCR” CNF on the U.S./Canada border; and between the SKOWT, MI, WP that replaces the “KJSTL” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME. The new RNAV route mitigates the V-348 revocation and provides route continuity and cross-border connectivity with the T-776 route segments being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace.

T-810: T-810 is a new Canadian RNAV route established within U.S. airspace extending between the BERDD, MI, WP that replaces the “KJNGG” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the JEORG, MI, WP that replaces the “CFKJR” CNF on the U.S./Canada border; and between the CATGA, MI, WP that replaces the CATGA, MI, Fix on the U.S./Canada border and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME. The new RNAV route mitigates the V-300 airway segment removal and provides route continuity and cross-border connectivity with the T-810 route segments being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace.

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the restricted area airspace at Camp Grayling, MI, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army training requirements.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2023-1972 in the Federal Register (88 FR 70915; October 13, 2023), proposing to raise the designated altitude ceiling of restricted area R-4201B, Camp Grayling, MI, from 9,000 feet MSL to 23,000 feet MSL, adding a “tie-in” boundary point in the R-4201A boundaries description to ensure a shared R-4201A and R-4201B boundary, and making minor administrative changes to the R-4201B time of designation information and the R-4201A and R-4201B using agency information. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received. Both comments supported the proposed restricted area amendment actions.

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by raising the designated altitudes ceiling of restricted area R-4201B, Camp Grayling, MI; adding a “tie-in” boundary point in the R-4201A boundaries description to ensure a shared R-4201A and R-4201B boundary; and making minor administrative changes to the existing R-4201B time of designation and the R-4201A and R-4201B using agency information.

The R-4201B ceiling is raised to 23,000 feet MSL to match the restricted area ceiling with the adjacent R-4201A ceiling and connect the eastern boundaries of the two restricted areas equally with two new MOAs proposed as part of a previously published non-rulemaking proposal to amend the Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC) Airspace Complex.

An additional boundary point is added to the existing R-4201A southern boundary to ensure a shared boundary with the northern boundary of R-4201B. The additional boundary point located at latitude 44°47′00″ N, longitude 84°38′00″ W in the R-4201A description matches the geographic coordinates of the northwest corner of R-4201B and does not change the boundaries alignment for either restricted area.

The minor administrative change to the existing R-4201B time of designation does not change when the restricted area is available to be scheduled. Additionally, the administrative changes to the R-4201A and R-4201B using agency information prefaces the existing using agency information with “U.S. Army.” These administrative changes do not affect the scheduling, use, or activities conducted within the restricted areas.

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

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the Michigan Air National Guard (MIANG) prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Modification and Addition of Airspace at the Alpena Special Use Airspace (SUA) Complex, dated February 2, 2024. The EA considers the potential consequences to the human and natural environment associated with modification, expansion, and utilization of the Alpena SUA Complex, including the use of restricted areas R-4201A and R-4201B for NGB and MIANG aircraft exercises. The FAA is a cooperating agency for the NGB and MIANG EA since it has jurisdiction by law over the provision and use of the airspace in which the NGB and MIANG actions take place. In accordance with NEPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500 and FAA's NEPA implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 8-2, The Adoption of Other Agencies' NEPA Documents, the FAA has adopted the NGB and MIANG EA and published its own FONSI for the establishment and use of the Alpena SUA Complex near Alpena, MI, dated April 17, 2024.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 1 the regulations establishing the requirements for flight instructors and check airmen in parts 121 and 135 are unclear regarding the medical certificate requirements when flight instructors or check airmen perform their duties in aircraft. The regulations indicate that flight instructors conducting flight training and check airmen administering checks in aircraft must hold a third-class medical certificate when not serving as a required flightcrew member. Elsewhere, however, the regulations also state that no medical certificate is required unless the flight instructor or check airman is serving as a required crewmember. Additionally, part 135 check pilots (aircraft) were held to different medical certification standards than part 121 check pilots and flight instructors and part 135 flight instructors. 2 This final rule resolves the discrepancy in the pertinent regulations by clarifying that flight instructors, check pilots, and check flight engineers (FEs) must hold the appropriate medical certificate only when serving as required flightcrew members in an aircraft. The final rule also includes nonsubstantive nomenclature changes and reorganizes certain sections of parts 121 and 135.

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator to promulgate rules and regulations. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the FAA's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in section 44701, General Requirements; section 44702, Issuance of Certificates; and section 44703, Airman Certificates. Under these sections, the FAA prescribes regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. In addition, section 44701(d)(1)(A) specifically states the Administrator, when prescribing safety regulations, must consider the duty of an air carrier to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest.

As discussed in the NPRM, all pilots serving in title 14 CFR part 121 and part 135 operations are required to complete certain flight training  3 and checking  4 on a regular basis to ensure each pilot's competency in operating the specific aircraft. The checks are conducted by check pilots:  5 airmen approved by the FAA who have the appropriate knowledge, training, experience, and demonstrated ability to evaluate and to certify the knowledge and skills of other pilots. The role of the check pilot is to ensure that the flightcrew member has met competency standards in a particular aircraft before the check pilot releases the flightcrew member from training and that the flightcrew member maintains those standards while remaining in line service. Similar responsibilities and objectives exist for check FEs in part 121. 6 Check pilot qualifications are set forth in §§ 121.411 and 135.337, as applicable. Check FE qualifications are set forth in § 121.411.

The flight training is conducted by a flight instructor who is designated by a part 121 or part 135 certificate holder and has the appropriate knowledge, training, experience, and demonstrated ability to instruct flightcrew members in a flight training segment of that certificate holder's training program. Flight instructor qualifications are set forth in §§ 121.412 and 135.338.

Under parts 121 and 135, flight training and checking can be accomplished in an aircraft or in a flight simulation training device (FSTD). As such, the qualification requirements for flight instructors, check pilots, and check FEs correspond to whether the training and checking is conducted in an aircraft or an FSTD. In an FSTD, flight instructors, check pilots, and check FEs typically do not occupy a flightcrew member station during training or checking. Rather, they typically occupy an instructor station from which they can oversee the simulation. Even when flight instructors, check pilots, or check FEs occupy a flightcrew member station in an FSTD, they are not subject to flightcrew member requirements that apply to operations conducted in the national airspace. 7

When performing flight instructor, check pilot, or check FE duties in an aircraft, that person may serve as a required flightcrew member. Specifically, a flight instructor, check pilot, or check FE is a required flightcrew member if (1) required by the regulations under which the flight is being conducted ( e.g., when a safety pilot is required under part 91 or when a person receiving instruction is not qualified to act as pilot-in-command (PIC) and, therefore, the flight instructor acts as the PIC) or (2) required by the type certificate of the aircraft. 8 In these scenarios, the person may serve as a required flightcrew member only if, in addition to meeting the requirements to hold the respective position of flight instructor, check airman, or check FE, the person is also qualified to serve in the flightcrew member position, which includes medical certificate requirements.

Prior to 1996, the FAA required medical certificates for flight instructors and check airmen  9 performing such functions, even if they were not serving as required flightcrew members. 10 This was largely because the primary means of training occurred in an aircraft until the implementation of significant changes in training methods ( i.e., increased use of flight simulation) beginning in the late 1970s. With the increase in FSTD use, in 1996, the FAA, acknowledging that some experienced part 121 and part 135 airmen, who would otherwise qualify as flight instructors or check airmen but were not medically eligible to hold a medical certificate, were foreclosed by regulation from performing their functions even in FSTDs, revised the regulations. 11 Specifically, the final rule removed the medical certificate requirement altogether for flight instructors and check pilots in parts 135 and 121 who perform their functions in FSTDs. 12 However, as noted earlier, the regulatory text ultimately introduced confusion as to the medical certificate requirement for flight instructors and check airmen who perform their functions in aircraft in parts 121 and 135 when not serving as required flightcrew members. Specifically, §§ 121.411, 121.412, 135.337, and 135.338 apply internally inconsistent medical certificate requirements to check airmen and flight instructors when performing their duties in an aircraft.

Recognizing the contradiction in the regulations, the FAA gave force and effect to the most relieving provision by not requiring flight instructors and check airmen performing their respective duties in aircraft to hold any medical certificate when not serving as a required flightcrew member.

On June 3, 2019, the FAA published an NPRM that proposed to update regulatory text to remove the inconsistencies applicable to check pilots and flight instructors in parts 121 and 135 to provide clarity to check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors on the applicable medical certificate requirements when performing their functions in aircraft. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to keep and revise paragraph (b)(5) of §§ 121.411, 121.412, 135.337, and 135.338 to mandate medical certificate requirements only for those check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors considered required flightcrew members. Thus, the proposal removed explicit requirements for check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors who are not also serving as required flightcrew members. However, as proposed, the FAA would have kept language set forth in §§ 121.411(e), 121.412(e), 135.337(e), and 135.338(e) that specifically stated a person who did not hold a medical certificate may function as a check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor (as applicable), but could not serve as a required flightcrew member.

In response to comments received and additional analysis during the pendency of the rulemaking, the FAA recognizes that the proposed revisions to the regulations were insufficient to achieve the goal of the rulemaking: elimination of medical certificate requirement confusion. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) in each section (§§ 121.411, 121.412, 135.337, and 135.338) still would have required a person to hold all the “airman” certificates and ratings required to serve as a PIC in operations under that part, which would include the requisite medical certificate in exercising the privileges of a commercial or ATP certificate. 13 Therefore, the FAA is adopting different language than proposed in the 2019 NPRM, accompanied by reorganization of the affected sections to reduce redundancy. To note, the substantive relief remains unchanged from that proposed in the 2019 NPRM and historical practice ( i.e., elimination of medical certificate requirements if not serving as a required flightcrew member).

Specifically, as it pertains to part 121, §§ 121.411(b)(1) and 121.412(b)(2) require a check pilot, check FE, and flight instructor to hold the airman certificates and ratings required to serve as a PIC or FE, as applicable, under part 121 operations. As written, “airman certificates” would include a medical certificate. Instead of relying on paragraph (b)(5) as an exception to paragraph (b)(1) in each section, as previously explained, this final rule revises each paragraph (b)(1) to specify that the requisite pilot or FE certificate and/or ratings are required. This revision, therefore, conveys that a medical certificate is not generally included in the required certificates to serve as a check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor. Therefore, while the NPRM proposed to revise §§ 121.411(b)(5) and 121.412(b)(5) from the regulations, this final rule would remove both paragraphs. 14 Additionally, this final rule would remove existing §§ 121.411(e) and 121.412(e) and adopt a new paragraph (f) that concisely sets forth that a person who serves as a required flightcrew member while performing check pilot or check FE duties must meet all requirements for the duty position in which they are serving. This would include the requisite medical certificate for that duty position.

In summary, when not serving as a required flightcrew member, the check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor would be required to hold all certificates and ratings required to serve as PIC or FE under part 121, pursuant to §§ 121.411(b)(1) and 121.412(b)(1) except a medical certificate. Pursuant to new §§ 121.411(f) and 121.412(f), if the check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor was serving as a required flightcrew member, the person must also meet the requirements for the duty position in which they are serving. 15

Additionally, while the FAA did not propose a reorganization of §§ 121.411 and 121.412 in the NPRM as it did in part 135, this final rule will revise certain provisions to eliminate redundancy in the regulations. First, § 121.411(b)(4) requires an airplane check pilot or check FE to satisfactorily complete the applicable training requirements of § 121.413, including inflight training and practice for initial and transition training. Similarly, § 121.412(b)(4) requires an airplane flight instructor to satisfactorily complete the applicable training requirements of § 121.414, including inflight training and practice for initial and transition training. The FAA finds these concluding phrases to be redundant because §§ 121.413 and 121.414 set forth the initial, transition, and recurrent training and checking requirements for check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors, as applicable, and would control the scenarios under which the inflight training and practice for initial and transition training is required. Therefore, the FAA is removing the language in §§ 121.411(b)(4) and 121.412(b)(4) as redundant.

Second, § 121.411(b)(6) requires a check airman to satisfy the recency of experience requirements of § 121.439, as applicable. Section 121.439 sets forth the recent experience requirements for pilot qualification and applies specifically to required pilot flightcrew members in paragraph (a). In other words, § 121.439 would be rendered applicable only when a check pilot serves as a required flightcrew member. The recency of experience requirements of § 121.439 would, therefore, be required regardless of the specification of § 121.411(b)(6). The same principle applies in § 121.412. Therefore, §§ 121.411(b)(6) and 121.412(b)(6) are removed in this final rule; however, the FAA emphasizes that this does not change the existing substantive recency of experience requirements. Additionally, §§ 121.411(f) and 121.412(f) would act as an umbrella provision for check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors who serve as required flightcrew members, thereby subjecting a check pilot serving as a required flightcrew member to meet § 121.439.

In removing these revisions for redundancy (as well as §§ 121.411(b)(5) and 121.412(b)(5) as previously discussed), the requirements of § 121.411(b) for check pilot and check FE (airplane) are largely mirrored in § 121.411(c) for check pilot and check FE (FSTD). Similarly, the requirements of § 121.412(b) for flight instructor (airplane) are largely mirrored in § 121.412(c) for flight instructor (FSTD). Therefore, the FAA finds that the provisions in each paragraph, respectively, can be combined without losing any clarity or substantive requirements. Subsequently, the introductory language is revised to include both airplane and FSTD check pilots and check FEs, and paragraphs (b) and (c) are merged. 16 Additionally, the reference to paragraphs (c)(2) through (4) in §§ 121.411(d) and 121.412(d) are removed, as those previous provisions will be covered under the reference to paragraphs (b)(2) through (4), which remain.

The same general revisions are made in part 135; however, part 135 does not contemplate FEs as part 121 does. Therefore, §§ 135.337(b)(1) and 135.338(b)(1) are revised to state that check pilots must hold the pilot certificates and ratings required to serve as a PIC in operations under part 135. Additionally, for the same reasons previously discussed for part 121, this final rule removes paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6)  17 in each section, removes paragraph (e) in each section, and adds new paragraph (f), explicitly stating that each person who serves as a required flightcrew member while performing check pilot duties must meet the requirements for the duty position in which they are serving. This would include the appropriate medical certificate when serving as a required flightcrew member. The FAA acknowledges that there may be instances where a person is “assigned” to a part 135 operation. The FAA notes that if a check pilot or flight instructor is assigned duties, then they must be qualified as if they were required ( i.e., must be qualified for the operation for which the person is to be used), pursuant to § 135.95. Additionally, for the same reasons previously discussed in the part 121 revisions, the FAA is combining § 135.337 paragraph (c) with paragraph (b) and § 135.338(c) with (b).

In summary, these changes clarify that a person serving as a check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor under parts 121 or 135 would not be required to hold a medical certificate unless serving as a required flightcrew member. As previously discussed, a person is a required flightcrew member in two scenarios: (1) where the operating rule requires the person to be a flightcrew member or (2) the aircraft's type certificate requires the person to be a flightcrew member. In either scenario, the person would be required to hold a medical certificate in accordance with the privileges of the certificate they were exercising. 18 For example, if a check pilot is performing a check but also serving as a safety pilot under § 91.109, that check pilot would be considered a required flightcrew member (due to the operating rule). Because under § 91.109(c)(1), the safety pilot/check pilot would be exercising the privileges of at least a private pilot certificate, the person must hold the requisite medical certificate: at least a third-class medical certificate. 19 As another example, if the check pilot is conducting a check under part 135 in an aircraft that requires two pilots via type certificate and the check pilot is the second pilot, the check pilot would be serving as a required flightcrew member under that part (due to type certificate). That check pilot would be serving as second in command, requiring at least a commercial pilot certificate and an instrument rating pursuant to § 135.4. Because the check pilot would be exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating, that check pilot must hold at least a second-class medical certificate. 20 The same principle applies to part 121 operations, as well as flight instructors who would be considered required flightcrew members.

As discussed in the previous section, the final rule revises and removes a number of existing paragraphs within §§ 121.411, 121.412, 135.337, and 135.338. The FAA provides the following tables to concisely detail the resulting redesignation within those sections.

The FAA received and considered 12 comments to the NPRM, consisting of two from industry (Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. and Harris Aircraft Services, Inc.) and 10 from individuals. The majority of commenters, including Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (Ameristar) and Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. (Harris), supported the rule. Only two individuals opposed the proposal, while three commenters sought additional clarification on the proposal.

The majority of commenters supported the proposal. While some simply stated support for the proposal with no further rationale, several provided additional discussion as part of their support. Many supporters stated that the proposal helps to clarify an unsettled area of confusion for parts 121 and 135 operators. Supporters, including Harris and Ameristar, emphasized that adoption of the proposal would ensure operators could capitalize on the experience, ability, and expertise of retired or semi-retired pilots who may not be able to qualify for a medical certificate. Ameristar contended that utilizing the check airmen and instructors in a non-required flightcrew member role provides benefits, including, for example, providing: (1) an additional person on the flight deck who understands the systems, procedures, and regulatory requirements and (2) an additional person to evaluate the improvement of teaching and checking techniques. Because that person is an additional and not a required flightcrew member, the lack of a medical certificate in that role would not necessarily degrade safety, as the person would not be in control of the aircraft. A couple of commenters went on to stress, though, that if check airmen or flight instructors were serving as required crewmembers, then they should possess the appropriate medical certificate to serve in the requisite capacity. Harris noted that the ability to utilize pilots for longer periods as check pilots would relieve the burden from the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). 21

Several commenters suggested clarifications to the proposed regulatory text, asked specific questions and/or hypothetical scenarios to ensure understanding of the proposal, or requested additional relief for check pilots and flight instructors. This section responds to such comments.

First, one commenter asked the FAA to clarify when a check pilot would be a required flightcrew member. The commenter stated there are a number of operators who fly Caravan and Pilatus series aircraft in commercial operations, which are examples of specific aircraft that are certified to fly in commercial operations using a single pilot. The commenter further stated that if a check pilot were to give a check ride in one of these aircraft and the flight was flown under visual flight rules (VFR) flight with the applicant wearing a view limiting device, then the check pilot would be considered an essential flightcrew member even though the type certificate for the aircraft does not require a second pilot. The commenter asked for additional clarification to the regulation to explicitly allow a check pilot without a medical certificate to serve as a safety pilot while simultaneously conducting a check ride in an aircraft certified to be used in commercial operations using a single pilot. The commenter explained that, if needed, the check ride could be conducted or mandated to be flown in VFR conditions if there was any concern with the applicant wearing a view-limiting device, adding that while the flight may be conducted while adhering to part 135 rules for the purposes of the check ride, the flight could be legally flown under part 91.

As discussed in section IV.A. of this preamble, a person is a required flightcrew member in two scenarios: where the operating rule or the aircraft's type certificate requires the person to be a required flightcrew member. In the commenter's hypothetical, the person would be required to hold a medical certificate in accordance with the privileges of the certificate they were exercising. Therefore, as the example provides in that section, the safety pilot would be exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate and would require at least a third-class medical certificate. The FAA recognizes that the currently situated regulations indicate that, in this case, a safety pilot would be required to hold a first- or second-class medical certificate. As discussed, the FAA has removed that language in the adoption of this final rule; the pilot certificate that is required for the specific operation (whether that be by regulation or type certificate) controls what medical certificate is necessary for the pilot to hold.

The same commenter also asked the FAA to consider extending the rulemaking further to remove the general requirement that FAA aviation safety inspectors (ASIs) possess second-class medical certificates, as advertised by FAA ASI job solicitations. The commenter stated that ASI positions that involve simulator-only operations should be given the same consideration that check pilot, check FE, and flight instructor positions were given in this proposal ( i.e., to not require that they hold medical certificates). The commenter explained that an ASI is not normally acting as a required crewmember, and there is no need for an ASI to hold a medical certificate if the ASI is overseeing an airline designating a new check pilot or renewing a check pilot. The commenter asked if, assuming all the other requisites for that type of ASI job announcement are met, the FAA could consider removing the requirement that ASIs hold medical certificates for ASIs involving simulator operations so that the FAA could access the same highly experienced pilot pool as is discussed in the proposal concerning check pilots and flight instructors.

The FAA acknowledges this comment, but changes to the FAA's hiring parameters and qualifications are outside the scope of this rulemaking. FAA requirements for ASIs are internal requirements specific to the FAA's employees rather than regulations on the public. Such internal FAA requirements are not subject to rulemaking nor public notice and comment.

Two individuals commented on requirements where a check pilot would be only occupying the jump seat. One of the individuals stated that the medical certification requirements should only be specific to or differentiate between the position of the check pilot: for example, a jump seat or a simulator. The FAA maintains that the differentiation between the requisite medical certificates should not be driven by the pilot's physical position in the aircraft but rather by their duties. The implementation of a rule only applicable to a certain location or seat could not be applicable to every contemplated aircraft that may be used in a part 121 or part 135 operation. Specifically, a check pilot may be checking a pilot in an aircraft that does not have a jump seat. Or, an aircraft may be type certificated for one pilot, and the regulations do not require more than one, in which case the check pilot could occupy the right seat to carry out the check. Therefore, it is inappropriate to regulate based solely on the physical location of the check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor and, for the reasons discussed in this preamble, more appropriate to ensure the pilot possesses the corresponding medical certificate required to perform the duties of the position that pilot is performing.

Next, one commenter asked whether a person would need to hold a medical certificate if that person was a check pilot or flight instructor who was the sole person on board with the ability to maintain the flight.

The FAA assumes that the commenter is alluding to a scenario in which a flight departs with a pilot serving as PIC in a single pilot operation with a check pilot on board conducting a check, subsequent to which the pilot experiences an incapacitating event and the check pilot is therefore required to fly the aircraft. While it is possible that a scenario such as the commenter raised could occur, the required flightcrew determination that check pilots rely on is made prior to takeoff based on the type certificate for the aircraft or the regulations governing the flight. In a hypothetical emergency situation, the primary concern would be the safety of the persons on board the aircraft and landing the aircraft; a medical certificate (or lack thereof) should not prevent a check pilot or flight instructor from mitigating a safety situation. Therefore, the FAA does not intend to make amendments to the regulations beyond what was in the NPRM.

Ameristar requested clarification regarding the recency of experience and training requirements. Specifically, Ameristar asked that the FAA state whether a flight instructor who is not a required crewmember must meet the recency of experience requirements of § 121.412(b)(6). Ameristar believes that the instructor would not need to meet those requirements as long as he or she meets all of the other requirements of § 121.412.

Section 121.412 contains the qualification requirements for persons serving as flight instructors under part 121. Among these requirements, § 121.412(b)(6) requires part 121 flight instructors to, with respect to the airplane type involved, meet the recency of experience requirements of § 121.439, as applicable. The FAA notes that the same requirement would apply to check pilots and check FEs under part 121, as § 121.411 requires check pilots to meet the recency of experience requirements of § 121.439, as applicable. The recent experience requirements in § 121.439 apply only to “required pilot flightcrew members.” Therefore, for flight instructors, check FEs, and check pilots in aircraft who are not serving as required flightcrew members, the recency of flight experience requirements of § 121.439  22 are not applicable. This same concept applies to the recency of flight experience requirements in part 135. In other words, for part 135, a certificate holder may only use a check airman or flight instructor as a required flightcrew member serving as PIC carrying passengers if the person has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of § 135.247. Because these regulations set forth the conditions under which a pilot or FE must meet the recency of experience, the FAA does not find these provisions ( i.e., §§ 121.411(b)(6), 121.412(b)(6), 135.337(b)(6), and 135.338(b)(6)) required. The FAA expects these revisions to succinctly set forth the expectations for recency of experience. See section IV.A. of this preamble for additional discussion on the removal of these paragraphs.

Finally, Ameristar stated that it believed that the authorization to conduct training or checking without a medical certificate should be delineated to (1) line checks pursuant to § 121.440, where the PIC being checked is currently qualified as a pilot in command and is not out of currency, and (2) refresher training under § 121.434(h)(4)(ii) or other training required by a training program that requires an observation by an aircraft instructor or check pilot where the individual is otherwise qualified to be a required crewmember. Ameristar recommended limiting the allowance of checking or training without a medical certificate in part 121 to the line check requirement in § 121.440 and the refresher training in § 121.434 (or similar observational training) only. The FAA emphasizes that, as previously discussed, §§ 121.411 and 121.412 are currently implemented so as to not require a medical certificate when a check pilot or flight instructor is not serving as a required flightcrew member. This final rule merely clarifies, but does not change, the current implementation of those requirements. It is not the FAA's intention to limit the authorization to conduct training or checking without a medical certificate further, nor does the FAA find it appropriate to do so. If the check pilot and flight instructor conducting their duties under § 121.440 or § 121.434 are not required crewmembers, then they would not be required to hold a medical certificate.

Two anonymous commenters explicitly disagreed with the proposal. One commenter expressed a lack of understanding as to why check pilots should be exempt from medical certificate requirements, opining that it could be dangerous to other people on the flight if they relied on the check pilot and a medical situation were to happen. The second commenter believed that lowering the certifications would add to general aviation community fears, especially as it pertained to flight paths of commuter aircraft.

As discussed in the NPRM, given the contradictory provisions in parts 121 and 135 regarding medical certification, the FAA currently implements §§ 121.411, 121.412, 135.337, and 135.338 under the least burdensome provision such that parts 121 and 135 check pilots and flight instructors are not required to hold a medical certificate unless serving as required flightcrew members. In other words, this final rule maintains the status quo of medical certificates in current practice. Given the length of time and lack of safety data to support more stringent medical certificate requirements on these persons, the FAA has no basis upon which to conclude that this final rule would create an adverse impact on safety. The required flightcrew, who are responsible for the safe conduct of the flight, will continue to hold the appropriate medical certificates as required by § 61.23.

Further, when a check pilot or flight instructor is serving as a required flightcrew member ( i.e., at the controls as required by regulation or type certificate), that check pilot or flight instructor must be fully qualified to serve as PIC  23 to include the requirement to hold a first- or second-class medical certificate, as appropriate, under § 61.23. In other words, they are not exempt from any medical certificate requirement. The only time a check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor is not required to hold a medical certificate is when they are not serving as a required flightcrew member; in that case, they are not needed for the conduct of the flight, and the person or persons operating the flight in that scenario would be fully qualified to conduct the operation. Eliminating the requirement that a check pilot, check FE, or flight instructor hold a medical certificate when they are not serving as a required flightcrew member will have no impact on risk to safety because aircraft will continue to operate using required flightcrew members who satisfy the necessary training and qualification requirements, including the requirement to hold an appropriate medical certificate. Therefore, while the FAA is revising some regulatory text from that proposed in the NPRM, as explained in this preamble, the FAA is moving forward with the removal of certain inconsistent text to make clear no medical certificate is required for certain persons.

The FAA notes that it did not propose changes to certain terminology in part 121 of the NPRM. However, given the proposed changes in part 135, the FAA finds that it would introduce confusion to have references to “check airmen” and “check pilots,” which could indicate the two have different meanings when that may not be the intent. Therefore, the FAA is adopting nonsubstantive rule terminology changes in part 121 of this final rule. Specifically, “check airmen” is changed to “check pilot” and/or “check flight engineer” (as applicable  24 ) in the plural and singular. Currently, the term “check airmen” applies to both check pilots and check FEs. While there are similarities between the required training, qualification, and duties of check pilots and check FEs, there are many distinctive requirements. For example, a check pilot evaluates pilots operating the flight controls of an airplane, while a check FE evaluates FEs managing airplane systems. Using “check airmen” to describe both check pilots and check FEs can lead to confusion or misapplication of the regulations. Additionally, some provisions in subparts N and O of part 121 use the term “pilot check airman,” while other provisions in subparts N and O use the term “check pilot.” The FAA considers these two terms synonymous, but using two different terms can create confusion and inconsistent application.

Additionally, the term “simulator” is changed to “FSTD.” Specifically, where the regulations reference a flight simulator or a flight training device together, the correct terminology is “flight simulation training device” or “FSTD,” given the definition of a flight simulation training device in 14 CFR 1.1. 25 This revision does not result in any substantive change to the regulations; rather, it simply condenses regulatory text. The following table sets forth the specific revised regulatory citations.

The FAA did not receive any comments on its proposed part 135 terminology changes as discussed in the NPRM. Specifically, the FAA proposed to change “check airman” to “check pilot,” in the singular and plural, as well as changing “flight simulator” to “FSTD,”  26 where appropriate, and adopts these revisions in this final rule. The following table sets forth the specific revised regulatory citations.

During the pendency of this rulemaking, the FAA noted several provisions in parts 121 and 135 that direct action or remove action after a certain date that has since passed. As a result, these provisions are unnecessary and may be removed without any substantive effect. The FAA notes that, while these removals were not included in the NPRM to this Final Rule, they are purely editorial revisions in nature that do not result in additional or lesser requirements on the regulated community.

First, in December 1995, the FAA published the Air Carrier and Commercial Operator Training Programs final rule. 27 This created a rule (§ 121.404) with compliance requirements for flight crewmembers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers to have received Crew Resource Management (CRM) or Dispatch Resource Management (DRM) initial training by certain dates ( i.e., after March 19, 1998 and after March 19, 1999). Because these dates have passed, the FAA removes references to the expired compliance dates from § 121.404 in this final rule.

Next, in November 2013, the FAA issued the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule. 28 That rule prescribed a compliance date of March 12, 2019, for certain provisions. Because March 12, 2019, has passed, the FAA is removing references to that expired compliance date, as well as certain requirements in part 121 subparts N and O that have expired. Specifically, the following paragraphs list a compliance date of March 12, 2019, as an outgrowth of that rule. Because these regulations are now in effect and do not require an explicit compliance date, the following paragraphs are revised or removed, as appropriate, 29 from the regulations:

Finally, in February 2020, the FAA issued the Pilot Professional Development final rule. 32 That rule included April 27, 2022, or April 27, 2023, as a compliance date for certain provisions in part 121. For other provisions in part 121, the rule included April 27, 2022, as an expiration date. The FAA removes references to the April 27, 2022, compliance dates as well as any requirements in part 121 subpart N and appendix E to part 121 that expired on April 27, 2022. This revision includes the removal of reference to the April 27, 2022, compliance date in corresponding parts 91 and 135 that refer to part 121 certificate holders, specifically, §§ 91.1063 and 135.3. Furthermore, the FAA removes references to the April 27, 2023, compliance date, as air carriers are already in compliance with the provisions tied to that compliance date.

The following paragraphs are revised or removed, as appropriate, 33 from the regulations:

Federal agencies consider the impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), direct that each Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule will: (1) have savings and no additional costs, (2) not be an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094, (3) not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, (4) not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and (5) not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above.

As previously discussed, the FAA has determined the changes in this final rule will have no adverse impact on safety. The FAA has determined that allowing parts 121 and 135 check pilots and parts 121 and 135 flight instructors to perform their functions in an airplane without a medical certificate (unless they are required flightcrew members) has no negative effect on safety. Further, pilots serving as required flightcrew members must be fully qualified to serve as such and must have the appropriate medical certificate. If a check pilot or flight instructor is not a required flightcrew member, they are not necessary for the operation, and the flight may proceed whether or not they are present. The FAA's current application of the regulations to allow check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors to serve without medical certificates if not serving as required flightcrew members has caused no degradation in the safe operation of aircraft. Conversely, requiring a medical certificate for check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors who are not serving as required flightcrew members would result in an unnecessary burden.

As of January 2020, there are approximately 1,069 part 135 check pilots. 35 Of these 1,069 part 135 check pilots, there are roughly 532 part 135 check pilots who do not hold a medical certificate. In the NPRM, the FAA estimated cost savings from enabling check pilots who do not hold a medical certificate to perform their duties in an aircraft. The FAA requested additional information and data on the expanded opportunities for affected check pilots but did not receive additional information or data. The final rule instead clarifies that check pilots who are otherwise qualified and are not serving as required flightcrew are already exempt from having to hold a medical certificate as a matter of FAA policy (see section III. of this preamble, which explained that the FAA gave force and effect to the most relieving provision by not requiring flight instructors and check airmen performing their respective duties in aircraft to hold any medical certificate when not serving as a required flightcrew member). Since these check pilots can already perform their duties in an aircraft, the FAA does not estimate cost savings in this final rule but notes that the clarification could provide minimal cost savings.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121) and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” includes small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This final rule clarifies that part 135 check pilots who do not hold a current medical certificate but are otherwise qualified can function as check pilots, check FEs, and flight instructors in aircraft. This change could provide cost savings to a few part 135 check pilots without additional costs. The final rule also clarifies related FAA regulations without substantive effect. Thus, the expected outcome would be a small positive impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking action.

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that those international standards be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it has only a domestic impact and, therefore, does not present any obstacle to foreign commerce of the United States.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. The FAA determined that this final rule will not result in the expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

The existing information collection associated with all check pilot and flight instructor medical certificates in parts 121 and 135 was approved under OMB control number 2120-0034. The information collection is used to collect medical certificate information to determine whether applicants are medically qualified to perform the duties associated with the class of medical certificate sought. The FAA has determined that removing the medical certificate requirement for part 135 check pilots (aircraft) who are currently eligible for a medical certificate but who may choose to allow their certificate to expire would result in a negligible reduction in the information collection, as pilots serving as a required flightcrew member would still need to maintain a valid medical certificate. The FAA has determined that there is no reduction in the information collection associated with part 121 check pilots and flight instructors and part 135 flight instructors. The FAA has also determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations.

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under NEPA in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and that no extraordinary circumstances exist.

The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132. The FAA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this rule will not have federalism implications.

Consistent with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding Federal actions that have the potential to uniquely or significantly affect their respective Tribes. The FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this final rule.

The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211. The FAA has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive order and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Under Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, regulatory approaches developed through international cooperation can provide equivalent protection to standards developed independently while also minimizing unnecessary differences. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action does not affect international regulatory cooperation.

A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of this rule will be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found on the FAA's Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket, notice, or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44705 in Washington, DC.

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

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

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, 11 July 2024.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable to publish a NPRM within the required time frame to ensure publish safety.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to ensure navigational safety amidst the potential safety hazards associated with the event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks shows occurring from July 3, 2024 through July 6, 2024 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 1000-foot radius of the pyrotechnics platforms. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters before, during and after the scheduled firework events within the designated safety zones.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 3, 2024 through July 6, 2024. The safety zones will cover all navigable waters within 1000 feet of the pyrotechnics platforms located in the follow areas on the indicated dates: Bel Air Bay on July 3, 2024 located in position 34°02′08.3″ N/118°32′44.5″ W; Newport Beach on July 4, 2024, located in position 33°35′28.4″ N/117°53′17.8″ W; Long Beach Carnival Cruise Terminal Dock, located in position 33°45′06.8″ N 118°11′13.7″ W; Three Arch Bay on July 5, 2024 located in position 33°29′08.7″/117°44′21.2″ W; and Two Harbors on July 6, 2024, located in position 33°26′45.4″ N/118°29′37.1″ W. The duration of the zones is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled events. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will be issuing Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves five safety zone lasting only 3 hours each that will prohibit entry within 1000 feet of the pyrotechnics platform used for the firework events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

On June 9, 2023, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 37839) to add a new exemption to § 1.582 of title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) exempting certain Harassment Prevention Program (HPP) records from the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. The exempted records include management notifications; investigator and coordinator findings; determinations as to whether harassment occurred; preventive or corrective action taken; and related correspondence, exhibits, and written follow-up documents. VA believes disclosure of these records would cause sources to refrain from disclosing information due to fear of reprisal and that disclosure would compromise guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality, therefore compromising VA's ability to conduct investigations and obtain information necessary to support an effective HPP.

VA provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on August 8, 2023. VA received seventy-one comments on the proposed rule. One comment was supportive of the rule, and we thank the commenter for their support. The remaining seventy comments opposed the proposed Privacy Act exemptions. VA addresses the non-supportive comments below, which have been grouped together by theme. VA adopts the proposed rule as final with one minor technical change described below.

Fifteen commenters raised concerns with the proposed rulemaking, stating that it will make it harder for employees to prevail in EEO cases and will negatively affect the outcome of HPP investigations. VA disagrees because EEO investigations are separate and independent investigations from HPP. HPP does not require a basis and does not make determinations of discrimination nor unlawful harassment, rather, HPP is focused on ensuring that harassment is expediently addressed and stopped. VA is committed to transparency in its investigative processes and believes the Privacy Act exemptions are necessary to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the HPP. The Privacy Act exemptions will protect the identities of sources wishing to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and other attempts to improperly influence outcomes of investigations. Since some comments appear to confuse the HPP and EEO processes, VA reiterates that the HPP and EEO process are distinct, and individuals can file both EEO and HPP complaints on the same underlying issue. Exempting HPP records will not impact the release of EEO reports of investigation because they are different processes. HPP investigations do not make legal determinations of unlawful harassment or discrimination. These investigations are designed to stop harassing behaviors before they become unlawful. EEO investigations are conducted by independent third-party investigators, while HPP complaints are investigated by factfinders in the facility where the incident occurred. VA makes no changes to the rule based on these comments.

Seventeen commenters expressed concerns that labor-management relations will deteriorate if the proposed Privacy Act exemptions are implemented. VA believes labor-management relations will not be impacted because VA protects individuals who participate in harassment investigations from retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and other attempts to improperly influence outcomes of investigations. Additionally, under current VA policy, there is an existing prohibition regarding providing HPP records to individuals filing HPP complaints as well as negotiated grievance procedures that only apply to the subject of the investigation. The rule will allow Union representatives to request HPP records using the VA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) procedures, contained in 38 CFR 1.550 through 1.562, where identities of sources are redacted. VA makes no changes to the rule based on these comments.

Thirty-four commenters expressed concerns that if these Privacy Act exemptions are implemented, ORMDI and local EEO offices would be flooded with complaints, which would result in complaints not being resolved at the lowest level. VA shares the concern for resolving complaints at the lowest level and is committed to holding those who engage in harassment accountable. VA will continue to offer multiple paths to report harassment, thereby allowing individuals to choose the path with which they are most familiar and provide increased safeguards to protect confidential sources from reprisal. VA believes revealing of HPP records will infringe upon the confidentiality of the program and threaten the privacy of the witnesses who are required to cooperate in the process. Individuals wishing to review the report will continue to be able to request the report through a FOIA request.

Nineteen commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would inhibit transparency. To reiterate, VA is committed to transparency in its investigative processes, but believes these Privacy Act exemptions are necessary to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the HPP. These Privacy Act exemptions will protect the identities of sources wishing to remain anonymous from retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and other attempts to improperly influence outcomes of investigations. VA makes no changes to the rule based on these comments.

Seven commenters were generally opposed to the rule and expressed concerns that exempting HPP records from disclosure under the Privacy Act would make it difficult to track repeat offenders, would show a lack of concern for harassment prevention by VA, and would be harmful to all. Implementing these Privacy Act exemptions will not conceal the existence of HPP records but will categorize these records as investigative documents necessary to carry out the HPP. As such, these Privacy Act exemptions will minimize the potential of altering investigative records, as well as safeguard the identity of witnesses, individuals who report the allegations, and other sources necessary to the investigative process. As mentioned previously, this rulemaking will not hinder the ability to request copies of redacted HPP records using VA's FOIA process. VA makes no changes to the rule based on these comments.

In the proposed rule, VA proposed adding the new Privacy Act exemptions for HPP records in paragraph (d) of 38 CFR 1.582. This was a technical error, as current paragraph (d) contains exemptions for certain police and security records and there should be no change to that paragraph. In this final rule, VA makes a minor technical change to correct the paragraph for the HPP Privacy Act exemptions to paragraph (e).

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through 612). The operations and administrative processes associated with this final rule consist of internal VA management officials and non-bargaining unit individuals (internal VA Human Resource or VA Quality Assurance staff). Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will not have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521).

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not satisfying the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on June 12, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 1 as follows:

In a document published in the Federal Register (FR) on August 14, 2023, VA proposed to revise its VA Health Professional Scholarship Program (HPSP) regulations. The purpose of the HPSP is to award scholarships to students pursuing a course of study leading to a degree in certain health care occupations, listed in 38 U.S.C. 7401(1) and (3). See § 17.600. The HPSP allows VA to provide scholarship awards to facilitate recruitment and retention of employees in several hard-to-fill health care occupations. Id. In the proposed rule we stated that we would amend the HPSP to reflect statutory changes made by section 104(a) of Division V of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (the Act), Public Law 117-328, which expanded HPSP by requiring VA to specifically award scholarships to applicants pursuing degrees or training in mental health disciplines, including advanced practice nursing (with a focus on mental health or substance use disorder), psychology, and social work. Section 104(a) of the Act also required that VA provide no fewer than an additional 50 awards (as compared to academic year 2021, which provided 33 awards) to such applicants per academic year starting in academic year 2022. 88 FR 54972. The rule also proposed to make a technical edit to the HPSP regulations to correct an approved Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Id.

VA provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on October 13, 2023. VA received 13 comments on the proposed rule. One comment supported the proposed rule and will not be further addressed in this final rule. The remaining comments are summarized and addressed in the discussion below.

VA received 11 comments regarding physician assistants (PAs). The comments suggested or supported the inclusion of PAs as mental health care professionals eligible to receive scholarships under proposed § 17.603(b)(2). For instance, a commenter suggested that generally PAs should receive scholarships under proposed § 17.603(b)(2) and another stated that PAs are a core mental health profession. VA does not make any changes based on these comments.

PAs are eligible to apply for and receive HPSP scholarships for mental health disciplines under proposed § 17.603(b)(2). Consistent with section 104(a) of Division V of the Act, VA proposed to revise § 17.603(b)(2) to expand HPSP to applicants who are pursuing degrees or training in mental health disciplines, including advanced practice nursing (with a focus on mental health or substance use disorder), psychology, and social work. As noted in the proposed rule, this is not an exhaustive list and merely mirrors section 104(a) of Division V of the Act. 88 FR 54974. VA acknowledges that PAs' training includes core mental health training and mandatory psychiatry clinical rotations, and they may provide mental health care. Thus, PAs are eligible to apply for and may receive HPSP scholarships for mental health disciplines under proposed § 17.603(b)(2) once this rule is final and effective.

Other commenters suggested that PAs be listed in proposed § 17.603(b)(2) as a mental health profession eligible for a HPSP scholarship pursuant to the Act. Relatedly, one commenter stated that VA should provide an exhaustive list of health care professions that may be awarded the HPSP scholarship under proposed § 17.603(b)(2). We do not make changes to the rule based on these comments.

As VA explained in the proposed rule, the list of mental health disciplines in proposed § 17.603(b)(2) is not an exhaustive list, as there are other mental health disciplines not included in the Act. (See 88 FR 54974). Other mental health disciplines may include licensed professional mental health counselor, marriage and family therapist, and rehabilitation counseling. The list in proposed § 17.603(b)(2) was merely meant to mirror the statutory language and is not exclusionary of other mental health care professions. VA determined that it should maintain a non-exhaustive list in the regulation to permit flexibility so that new mental health professions can be included without the need to amend the regulations. Therefore, other occupations not listed in proposed § 17.603(b)(2) that may provide clinical care in mental health programs may, and are encouraged to, apply for and receive HPSP scholarships.

One commenter recommended that VA expand HPSP scholarships to mandate inclusion for PAs. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that VA mandate that PAs be prioritized over other potential applicants, VA cannot mandate that PAs be selected over other health care professions. Under 38 U.S.C. 7612(D), VA may provide scholarships with a preference for applicants who are veterans. VA does not have any other preferential statutory authority. The awarding of HPSP scholarships is based on VA recruitment needs. As previously stated in this rulemaking, an HPSP scholarship will be awarded only when necessary to assist VA in alleviating shortages or anticipated shortages of personnel in the health professions.

One commenter raised concerns that the HPSP website indicates that existing HPSP scholarships are limited to only those PAs with veteran status. VA is not making any changes to the rule based on this comment.

VA acknowledges that its HPSP website previously indicated that the PA scholarship is only open to those that have veteran status. VA has since updated its HPSP website to ensure it clearly explains that all PA students are allowed to apply for an HPSP scholarship, but that a preference may be given to veterans, consistent with § 17.605. While the eligibility criteria for HPSP does not require that applicants have any military experience (see § 17.602), if there are a larger number of equally qualified applicants than there are awards to be made, VA will first select veterans, then use a random method as the basis for further selection. See § 17.605(a). This provision applies to all health care professions eligible for HPSP scholarships, not just PAs.

One commenter encouraged VA to issue the 50 additional awards in the 2023 academic year, as increasing access to mental health care is critical.

Consistent with section 104(a) of Division V of the Act, VA proposed to provide no fewer than an additional 50 awards (as compared to academic year 2021) to applicants who are pursuing degrees or training in mental health disciplines per academic year starting in academic year 2022. See proposed § 17.603(b)(2) and 88 FR 54973. However, VA will not be able to implement this regulation until this final rule is published and effective, which will be after the start of the 2023 academic year. VA notes that under the current regulations, VA is authorized to provide HPSP scholarships to disciplines that provide clinical care within mental health programs and in academic year 2023, VA offered 87 scholarships for professions providing clinical care within mental health programs, which is more than the required 83 scholarships for mental health professions as required under the Act. VA is not making any changes based on this comment.

While not entirely clear, one commenter appeared to request chaplains be eligible for HPSP scholarships since they should be considered mental health professionals who are eligible under the changes VA proposed to make to § 17.603(b)(2) in the proposed rule. VA is not making changes based on this comment.

VA considers chaplains to be an integral part of the veteran's mental health and individuals who are pursuing a degree that leads to placement as a chaplain may be eligible to receive HPSP scholarships under §§ 17.603(b)(2) and (3) as revised and made final in this rule. However, in order to be eligible under § 17.603(b)(2) the criteria in § 17.603(b)(1) still needs to be met, which provides that an HPSP scholarship will be awarded only when necessary to assist VA in alleviating shortages or anticipated shortages of personnel in the health professions stated in paragraph (b) of this section. These occupations are identified in OIG's Determination of Veterans Health Administration's Severe Occupational Staffing Shortages Fiscal Year 2023. However, the OIG's report did not list the chaplain occupation as one of the severe shortage occupations within VA. Therefore, VA cannot award HPSP scholarships to individuals who are pursuing a degree leading to a position as a VA chaplain at this time. VA may offer HPSP scholarships to these individuals in the future should there be a shortage of VA chaplains.

A commenter questioned whether HPSP participants would be guaranteed placement in positions in VA that are mental health related if they are earning a degree that could be used to provide either mental health care or a different type of health care. VA is not making any changes based on this comment.

Pursuant to § 17.607(a), each participant is obligated to provide service as a Department of Veterans Affairs employee in full-time clinical practice in the participant's discipline in an assignment or location determined by the Secretary. Consistent with § 17.607, individuals who are awarded an HPSP scholarship under § 17.603(b)(2), as revised and made final in this rule, will be placed in positions that are mental health related.

Several comments were beyond the scope of the proposed rule. For instance, one commenter indicated that health care professionals need more mental health training. Another commenter requested changes be made to other VA directives and policies to better incorporate PAs as mental health providers. As these comments are beyond the scope of the rulemaking, we will not address them further.

Based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA is adopting the proposed rule as final with no changes.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 (Executive order on Modernizing Regulatory Review) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule will solely be operated and administered within VA and will only affect individuals who apply and are awarded an HPSP scholarship. On this basis, the Secretary certifies that the adoption of this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Although this final rule contains an increase in the provisions constituting a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this increase is already captured in an existing collection of information. The collection of information for 38 CFR 17.602 is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and has been assigned OMB control number 2900-0793. However, § 17.602 incorrectly reflects OMB control number 2900-0352. VA is correcting this technical error in this rulemaking by updating the reference in § 17.602 to OMB control number 2900-0793.

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not satisfying the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 12, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:

On May 12, 2023, the Postal Service published a notice of proposal (88 FR 30689) to remove IMM section 123.62 regarding known mailers and other related information in the IMM associated with known mailers to align postal regulations with current customs policy. In response to the proposed rule, the Postal Service received formal comments from two commenters as follows:

Comment: One commenter responded on behalf of the industry for multiple mailing services, noting that this industry represents the vast majority of the Postal Service's outbound commercial volume and revenue. The commenter indicated it would be challenging for this industry, especially for nonprofit and publication mailers, to remove the “known mailer” definition and exceptions for customs declarations, in that the change would end the current allowances whereby a good of nominal value (less than $1.00) can accompany a document mailed as a letter or flat without a customs form.

Response: Under the Acts of the Universal Postal Union (UPU), small packets containing goods must bear customs declarations, regardless of the minimal value of the goods. All goods require disclosure of details using the Customs Forms and Advance Electronic Data (AED) also known as Electronic Advance Data (EAD) outside of the United States, and as these items are traveling via international means, they must follow international rules for content and disclosure of contents.

Comment: The commenter further indicated that it would eliminate the current exception that also allows a document that exceeds the dimensions of a flat to be mailed as a packet without a customs declaration if it is poly-wrapped, noting that the exceptions were created a decade ago.

Response: Similar to the response above, under the Acts of the UPU, small packets containing goods must bear customs declarations, regardless of the minimal value of the goods. With respect to documents that are sent as bulky letters, the Postal Service does not have operational systems in place to separate such pieces from small packets containing goods. Consequently, a customs declaration is required for letter-post pieces that are entered as bulky letters i.e., that are items containing documents and are not eligible as letter-post letters or flats.

Comment: The commenter also indicated that, in 2017, similar comments of support to retain the known mailer exceptions were provided in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on International Mailing Service, citing that those comments are essentially unchanged, and are even more resonant today given the sizeable decline in the Postal Service's outbound volumes and revenue over the past five years. The commenter further noted that the Postal Service should not be adding any obstacles that make it harder for mailers to do business with it, especially given the highly competitive outbound market in which the Postal Service operates.

Response: The reduction of mail volumes and revenue, or other business concerns, while significant to the Postal Service, do not excuse the Postal Service and mailers from following international requirements for customs declarations and AED.

Comment: The commenter indicated that requiring a customs declaration form and accompanying electronic data for goods of a nominal value will be a costly adjustment to make for many current users, including among nonprofit organizations with which such items are most popular, in that it would require significant adjustments to their processes and increase their costs to accommodate the customs declaration form and data, most likely causing clients to consider the cost-effectiveness of sending future mailings, curtailing international fundraising mail. The commenter further indicated that adding the burden of the customs declaration form would make advertising mail with a giveaway cost-prohibitive for nonprofits.

Response: The cost effectiveness of this change does not dictate whether customs declarations are required by international law. This is not a change made with intent to shift burden or cost to the mailing or nonprofit industry; it is solely for consistency with mandatory international regulations.

Comment: Another notable challenge provided by the commenter is the proposed requirement that documents mailed as a packet due to size restrictions, such as publications, include a customs declaration form and associated electronic data. Any additional obstacles for publishers are likely to have an impact on outbound volumes.

Response: Similar to the response above, the impacts should be limited to an additional form placed on the package and associated AED transmission, and should not impact mail preparation or packaging unless the size of the item does not allow for a label that is 4 inches in length by 6 inches in height—in which case the package size may need to change or a smaller form may need to be designed and passed by the approving officials at the Postal Service for custom designed customs forms.

Comment: The commenter added that another problem with this proposed change is that confusion remains about whether publications and magazines sent as documents are “goods” that require a customs form. Some publications are free circulation, so customers do not pay for them and thus they have no monetary value to the customer, therefore presumably fitting the category of documents for which no customs declaration form is required. The commenter also contended that the importing country sets its own regulations determining whether publications are considered goods or documents and that it is not consistent across the board, with some countries treating publications as documents and others as goods. The commenter questioned whether the Postal Service would require a customs declaration form for all publications, even if the destination country considers them to be documents.

Response: In accordance with the UPU Convention and its Regulations, items containing goods require customs declarations. Documents generally consist of any written, drawn, printed, or digital information, excluding objects of merchandise, whose physical specifications lie within certain limits; goods generally consist of any tangible and movable objects other than money, including objects of merchandise, which do not fall under the definition of documents. Current IMM section 123.63 (here being renumbered as section 123.62) provides guidance on what items are generally considered documents and what items are generally considered merchandise. Customs declaration forms are required for magazines (periodicals) as merchandise.

Comment: The commenter also indicated that eliminating the known mailer exceptions adds another layer of complexity to the export compliance process, especially for shared partners that have worked closely with the Postal Service to meet the necessary export compliance requirements to ensure safety, security, and accountability in the international mailstream. The commenter further stated that these hurdles seem to tip the scale in favor of the Postal Service's competitors and that elimination of the known mailer exceptions adds one more weight to the scale.

Response: The Postal Service cannot choose whether or not items with goods require customs declarations as a matter of international law, regardless of whether competitors insist on customs forms for private shipments. Customs forms are typically required for goods shipped as private cargo.

Comment: The other commenter requested that the subsections containing “official mail” exceptions for customs declarations remain and not be amended. The commenter indicated that general descriptions are utilized to deter rifling and theft and that removing the known mailer definition would compromise classified and secret or sensitive materials and equipment, hinder investigations, and create stagnancy for the nation's trusted workforce, resulting in adverse impacts to government agencies and ultimately prevent the mailing of classified materials.

Response: Under binding international law, there is no general exception for customs declarations for “official mail.” At the same time, the Postal Service considers the security of all mail for which it is responsible to be of paramount importance.

The Postal Service is removing IMM section 123.62 in its entirety and revising associated IMM section 123.61a, Exhibit 123.61, and section 272.4 to remove known mailer references.

We believe these revisions are necessary to align postal policy with current customs and international mail regulations applicable to the United States and other countries. The Postal Service adopts the described changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 20 to reflect these changes.

In a separate rule, the Postal Service will also revise associated revisions to the DMM.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 20 is amended as follows:

Background

NMFS prepared the Salmon FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Salmon FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

Section 679.118(b)(2) requires that NMFS consider public comment on the proposed harvest specifications and publish the final harvest specifications in the Federal Register . The proposed 2024 harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area were published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2024 (89 FR 25857). Comments were invited and accepted through May 13, 2024. NMFS received 21 letters and 19 distinct comments during the public comment period for the proposed 2024 Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvest specifications. NMFS responses are addressed in the Response to Comments section below. After considering public comments submitted for the proposed rule (89 FR 25857, April 12, 2024), NMFS is implementing the final 2024 harvest specifications for the salmon fishery of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area consistent with the Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) fishing level recommendations and that account for the significant management uncertainty associated with this new fishery.

The final 2024 SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of biological parameters for five salmon species, and because harvest specifications must be in place before the fishery begins, the SAFE report relies on forecasts of the coming year's salmon runs. The 2024 forecasted returns, and, consequently, the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs were developed by NMFS and reviewed by the SSC. Status determination criteria (SDC) and harvest specifications are calculated in terms of potential yield for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The potential yield is the total forecasted run size minus the number of salmon required to achieve spawning escapement targets and the estimated mortality from other sources including in other fisheries. For the final 2024 SAFE report, NMFS developed suitable alternative forecasts based on historical data for some stocks and used fishery catch in prior years for other stocks and stock complexes to inform the 2024 harvest specifications.

Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP specifies the tiers used to calculate OFLs and ABCs. The tiers applicable to a particular stock or stock complex are determined by the level of reliable information available. This information is categorized into a successive series of three tiers to define OFLs and ABCs, with Tier 1 representing the highest level of information quality available and Tier 3 representing the lowest level of information quality available. NMFS used this tier structure to calculate OFLs and ABCs for each salmon stock or stock complex (a stock complex is an aggregate of multiple stocks of a species).

The SSC, Advisory Panel (AP), and North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) reviewed NMFS's preliminary 2024 SAFE report for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery in February 2024. From these data and analyses, the SSC recommended an OFL and ABC for each salmon stock and stock complex. The SSC further recommended changing the buffers that reduce ABC from the OFL for aggregate Chinook, aggregate pink, and aggregate chum salmon to be sufficiently precautionary. For each stock and stock complex, the SSC made recommendations regarding OFLs and ABCs and the AP recommended TACs, but after NMFS's consultation with the Council, the Council took no action to recommend Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon harvest specifications. NMFS is implementing the OFLs and ABCs recommended by the SSC and TACs consistent with the SSC's fishing level recommendations and that account for the significant management uncertainty associated with this new fishery. In making its motion at the February Council meeting, NMFS discussed the sources of scientific and management uncertainty in detail.

Following the February SSC and Council meeting, NMFS updated the 2024 SAFE report to include SSC recommendations (see ADDRESSES ). The final specifications are based on the final 2024 SAFE report, which represents the best scientific information available on the biological condition of salmon stocks in Cook Inlet and other social and economic considerations.

The recommended specifications of OFL, ABC, and TAC are consistent with the harvest strategy outlined in the Salmon FMP, the biological condition of salmon as described in the final 2024 SAFE, SSC recommendations, and with National Standard 1. ABC is less than or equal to the OFL for each stock and stock complex. TACs are established for species rather than stocks or stock complexes because it is not possible to differentiate among stocks of the same species through catch accounting during the fishing season. TACs for each species are set less than the aggregate ABC for each component stock and stock complex, and these TACs account for the assumed contribution of each stock or stock complex to total catch to ensure ABC is not exceeded for any stock and stock complex.

NMFS is publishing the final 2024 harvest specifications after: (1) considering comments received within the comment period (see DATES ); (2) considering information presented in the Analysis (see ADDRESSES ); and (3) considering information presented in the final 2024 SAFE report prepared for the 2024 Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fisheries (see 50 CFR 679.118(b)(2)).

The final 2024 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are based on the best scientific information available. The SAFE report was subject to peer review by the SSC, which recommended ABCs in table 1, as is consistent with §§ 600.310(f)(3) and 600.315(c)-(d). The TACs are adjusted to account for other relevant biological and social and economic considerations presented in the resource assessment documents ( i.e., the 2024 SAFE report) (see 50 CFR 679.118(a)(2)), including to account for management uncertainty for this new fishery, the estimated contribution of each stock or stock complex to total catch of a species, and to prevent catch in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area from exceeding the ABC for any stock or stock complex.

NMFS published its proposed harvest specifications on April 12, 2024 (89 FR 25857) and accepted public comment for 31 days, closing on May 13, 2024. NMFS received 21 letters with 19 distinct comments during the public comment. The comments were from individuals, environmental groups, local governments, commercial fishing organizations, tribes and tribal members, individual drift gillnet fishermen, and the United Cook Inlet Drift Association.

Comment 1: NMFS needs to revise the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery management measures implemented under amendment 16, including the use of a TAC, fishing dates and times, net length, recordkeeping and reporting, vessel monitoring systems, authority to issue Emergency Orders, refusal to honor Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) limited entry permits, research, a tribal fishery, and tribal engagement on amendment 16.

Response: These comments address topics outside the scope of the harvest specifications. Responses to any of these comments that were submitted regarding amendment 16 were addressed in the Comments and Responses section of the amendment 16 final rule (starting on page 34724 at 89 FR 34718, April 30, 2024). The comment period for amendment 16 ended on December 18, 2023. The rulemaking for the proposed and final harvest specifications sets the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs for the salmon fisheries of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and this action does not change any of the fishery management policies adopted under amendment 16.

Many of these comments asserted that the use of a TAC is not appropriate for salmon. As stated in the previous paragraph, the use of TACs was established by amendment 16 and its implementing regulations. These harvest specifications establish the amount of the TACs for salmon during the 2024 fishing year to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP. Therefore, any comments related to the use of a TAC are outside the scope of the harvest specifications.

Also, NMFS will monitor the fishery daily and use inseason management measures and adjust the TAC, if practicable and supported by the best scientific information available, to ensure that catch amounts are appropriate for the realized run strength. NMFS determined the TACs for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area are suitably precautionary to avoid overfishing.

Comment 2: The TACs proposed by NMFS for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area are set too low and will cause foregone harvest and over-escapement. Additionally, the 2024 forecast from State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is for 3.72 million sockeye, minus 1 million for the dip net/recreational fishery, which would leave about 2.7 million sockeye theoretically available for commercial harvest. There is no east side set net fishery again in 2024. There should be 2.7 million sockeye available for commercial users, only drift gillnet gear type is authorized for those commercial users, and 65 percent of the catch occurs in the EEZ, so the TAC would need to be set at least 1.7 million sockeye. For sockeye salmon, the TAC of 492,100 sockeye is too low as a result of buffers that are disproportionately conservative relative to other salmon stocks given their high abundance.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the 2024 Cook Inlet EEZ Area TAC of 492,100 sockeye salmon is too low and disproportionately conservative. NMFS also disagrees that the TAC should be 1.7 million sockeye salmon. The commenter's proposed TAC of 1.7 million sockeye salmon relies on incorrect assumptions of historical EEZ harvests, is not based on the preseason forecast method described in the final 2024 SAFE report, does not account for scientific uncertainty in reducing the pre-season OFL to the resulting ABCs recommended by the SSC, and does not account for management uncertainty in setting the TAC less than the combined ABCs.

NMFS disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the methodology used in the Federal harvest specifications for setting OFLs, ABCs, and TACs. As described in section 4.5.1.2.3 of the Analysis, the best available estimates of historical harvests indicate that, contrary to the commenter's contention, 47 percent (not 65 percent) of the Cook Inlet drift gillnet harvest have occurred in EEZ waters. Thus, the commenter overstates the proportions of historical harvests that are estimated to have occurred in Cook Inlet EEZ Area and, as a result, overestimated the number of sockeye salmon available for harvest by the drift gillnet fleet as described in the final 2024 SAFE report and determined by the Federal TAC setting process. In addition, the ADF&G preseason harvest estimate of 3.72 million sockeye salmon (across all fisheries) that is referenced by the commenter—which the commenter alleges should leave 2.7 million sockeye available for commercial harvest—was not available in time to be included in the final 2024 SAFE report for review by the SSC at the February 2024 Council meeting. Further, even assuming these numbers were accurate, the 2.7 million sockeye the commenter argues should be available for commercial harvest represents something akin to an OFL ( i.e., the maximum number of fish theoretically available for harvest before accounting for scientific and management uncertainty) and does not represent a scientifically-defensible ceiling for total commercial harvest. The combined 2024 OFL for sockeye under these harvest specifications is 2.33 million fish prior to accounting for scientific and management uncertainty, and the OFLs were based on the best scientific information available in time for SSC review. And as described in the final 2024 SAFE report, historical harvests, not total run size was used to set harvest specifications for the Tier 3 aggregate other sockeye salmon stock complex. Therefore, the combined preseason harvest estimate provided by the commenter, in addition to being erroneously inflated for the reasons described previously, is not directly comparable to estimates of total run size and OFL described in the final 2024 SAFE report.

As described in section 5 of the final 2024 SAFE report, for Tier 1 stocks of sockeye salmon ( i.e., Kenai and Kasilof river stocks), preseason total run size forecasts, which were based on the best scientific information available in time for SSC consideration, were reduced by the SSC-recommended spawning escapements and likely ADF&G harvests to result in OFLs of 901,932 sockeye salmon for the Kenai River and 541,084 sockeye salmon for the Kasilof River (1,443,016 fish combined for Tier 1 stocks). For the Tier 3 aggregate other stock, the SSC recommended an OFL of 887,500 fish by relying on estimated maximum historical annual catch.

After defining OFL for each stock or stock complex, the SSC recommends ABCs consistent with section 302(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. An ABC is “a level of a stock or stock complex's annual catch, which is based on an ABC control rule that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of [OFL], any other scientific uncertainty, and the Council's risk policy” (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1)(ii)). After considering scientific uncertainty in the calculation of OFLs for the Tier 1 stocks, including the historical accuracy of the estimates of run size and ADF&G harvests, the SSC recommended ABCs of 431,123 sockeye salmon for the Kenai River and 375,512 sockeye salmon for the Kasilof River (806,635 combined ABC for Tier 1 stocks). As described in section 5 of the final 2024 SAFE report, for the data-poor Tier 3 aggregate other sockeye salmon stock complex, the SSC recommended a higher buffer to account for the greater scientific uncertainty and significant data gaps for this stock complex, and ultimately recommended an ABC of 177,493 sockeye salmon. Thus, even prior to NMFS considering management uncertainty in setting a TAC for sockeye salmon, the sum of the 2024 SSC-recommended ABCs for sockeye salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (984,128 sockeye salmon) is considerably lower than the TAC recommended by the commenter (1.7 million sockeye salmon).

TAC is reduced from ABC to account for management uncertainty, which includes “[l]ate catch reporting; misreporting; underreporting of catches; lack of sufficient inseason management, including inseason closure authority; or other factors.” (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1)(v); see also 50 CFR 600.310(g)(4)). NMFS set the combined sockeye salmon TAC below the SSC's recommended ABCs to account for management uncertainty for this new fishery and to prevent catch in the EEZ from exceeding the annual catch limit, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1 guidelines (see 50 CFR 600.310(g)(4), providing that TACs should account “for management uncertainty in controlling the catch at or below the [annual catch limit],” which is equal to ABC for this fishery). In particular, NMFS considered the uncertainty associated with the efficacy and timeliness of catch reporting in a new fishery and the uncertainty associated with managing a mixed stock fishery in which certain weak stocks are at risk of missing their spawning escapement goals. At present, weak stocks' relative contribution to total EEZ harvest remains an estimate. The management uncertainty associated with the achievement of escapement targets for weak stocks is a separate consideration from the scientific uncertainty that was explicitly addressed in the SSC-recommended buffers that reduced the ABC from the OFL ( i.e., uncertainty of total run size estimate and uncertainty of ADF&G harvests).

For the Tier 3 aggregate other sockeye salmon stock complex, NMFS considered the management uncertainty associated with the achievement of the escapement goals for the indicator stocks in the stock complex. For that stock complex, NMFS determined that a 50 percent buffer of the ABC would result in harvests of the stock complex that approximate those estimated to have occurred during recent years ( e.g., compared with recent 5-year and 10-year averages) and, as such, that this level of harvest would generally also allow the achievement of spawning escapements to the indicator systems of the stock complex. However, as some indicator systems for this stock have not always achieved their spawning escapement targets during recent years, NMFS was justified in a applying a buffer that did not result in a large increase in the amount of harvest for this stock in the EEZ, especially during the first year of the fishery. Due to the mixed-stock nature of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery, the 50 percent buffer was applied to all stocks of sockeye salmon because the fleet cannot target any of the stocks in isolation, and NMFS must manage to ensure no harm is done to the stock complex that is most vulnerable to missing its escapement goals. NMFS cannot differentiate among stocks of the same species inseason, and NMFS is relying on estimates of relative sockeye stock contributions to total harvest in setting a combined TAC. NMFS must therefore account for considerable management uncertainty, justifying a 50 percent buffer to ensure no stock exceeds its ACL (equal to ABC). The combined TAC of 492,100 sockeye salmon is somewhat higher than recent levels of sockeye harvest in the EEZ (recent 10-year average estimated EEZ harvest of approximately 397,393 sockeye salmon).

Fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area targets mixed stocks of salmon that have varying levels of abundance and surplus yield. Conservation measures to prevent overfishing on salmon stocks that are less abundant and/or for which there is less available information to assess run strength are a primary driver of foregone yield to the more abundant stocks. Allowing a higher TAC to harvest surplus yield for more abundant stocks in the EEZ would create a significant risk of not meeting escapement goals for less abundant stocks and reduce or eliminate the harvestable surplus of these stocks available to all other salmon users. The 2024 TACs are appropriate for a new Cook Inlet EEZ Area fishery and will prevent harvest from exceeding the ABC, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard guidelines (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1), (2), (3)).

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has no prohibition against foregone harvest, explicitly mandates that NMFS prevent overfishing, and states that foregone harvest is necessary when additional harvest of an abundant stock would also result in harvest of species for which there is a conservation concern. Therefore, in determining harvest limits for a mixed stock fishery, NMFS cannot look at the more abundant stocks in isolation. Crucially, the commercial drift gillnet fleet has no means of targeting only one specific stock of salmon while fishing, so harvest limits must account for the assumed contribution of each stock to total harvest. Additionally, harvest limits are appropriately limited to EEZ waters (where NMFS has management authority) and defined so as to identify the amount of cumulative harvest of all co-occurring EEZ stocks that both provides harvest opportunity to the greatest extent practicable while preventing overfishing (supported by the best available scientific information). This is consistent with NMFS's approach to salmon management on the West Coast where “weak stock” management is required to avoid exceeding limits for the stocks with the most constraining limits.

In addition, Federal regulations for setting salmon TACs provide that the Council and NMFS should consider (1) the biological condition of salmon stocks and (2) social and economic considerations (50 CFR 679.118(a)(2)). For these harvest specifications, NMFS fully evaluated the biological condition of salmon stocks and social and economic considerations in specifying TACs. This information is extensively described in Section 2.5.2.2 of the Analysis, with additional relevant biological information on each stock provided in the Stock Status Summaries section of the 2024 SAFE report ( Tier determination and resulting OFL and ABC determination for 2024 ) and the sources NMFS references within the SAFE Report.

Each year when setting harvest specifications, NMFS will evaluate the potential harvest available in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and will work to provide harvest opportunities to the extent possible, subject to the constraints of scientific and management uncertainty. As the information available to NMFS to manage salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area improves through implementation of this new Federal fishery management regime, it is possible that harvest levels could increase in the future.

At this time there is not available information for NMFS to manage specific sockeye salmon stocks inseason and therefore NMFS will manage all sockeye salmon stocks inseason with a single TAC that includes harvests from the Kasilof, Kenai, and aggregate other sockeye salmon stocks. NMFS sets the combined sockeye salmon TAC after considering the best scientific information available on the relative contribution of each stock to the total catch. While there are currently no State of Alaska stocks of concern for sockeye salmon in Upper Cook Inlet, there are significant data gaps. For example, the lack of timely escapement data for the smaller spawning systems that make up the aggregate other sockeye salmon stocks—for which there is significant harvest—necessitates a precautionary approach to managing the fishery given the management and data limitations described above. These considerations are described throughout sections 2.5 and 3.1 of the Analysis. Preventing overfishing on all stocks within the fishery is consistent with NMFS's mandate under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 1.

Comment 3: The TAC for the aggregate other sockeye salmon stock complex may have a larger impact on the weaker sockeye stocks and is not conservative enough.

Response: NMFS set a combined TAC for all sockeye salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, including for the stock complex it refers to in the harvest specifications as “aggregate other sockeye salmon.” Drift gillnet fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvests multiple sockeye salmon stocks originating from systems throughout Cook Inlet. There is no information currently available for NMFS managers to utilize to determine genetic stock composition during the fishing season ( i.e., how many sockeye from each system are caught each day). Therefore, NMFS must manage using a combined sockeye salmon stock TAC as a conservation measure to prevent overfishing on less abundant co-occurring salmon stocks. However, NMFS did use the historical genetic catch composition data that is available post-season to set TACs that avoid exceeding the SSC's recommendation for each component stock. Given this information, NMFS does not expect that the ABC for “aggregate other sockeye salmon” (which includes the weakest sockeye salmon stocks in Cook Inlet) will be exceeded if the combined sockeye salmon TAC is fully harvested. The TAC amount includes an additional reduction between ABC and TAC to account for management uncertainty (see the response to comment 2 for more detail).

Comment 4: The proposed TAC of 25,000 coho salmon is appropriate based on the available, although extremely limited, information.

Response: NMFS agrees. Compared to other stocks, the 2024 SAFE report supports, and the SSC recommended, a relatively conservative buffer for aggregate coho salmon during 2024 due to the lack of information necessary to estimate total run size and associated status determination criteria for the aggregate coho stock complex, and genetic evidence showing that significant proportions of the coho salmon harvested by the drift gillnet fleet are likely bound for Northern Cook Inlet drainages where indicator stocks have not consistently achieved spawning escapement goals during recent years. Therefore, in order to help ensure that spawning escapement goals are achieved, and allow for at least some harvestable surplus for other users, NMFS selected a sufficiently conservative coho salmon TAC.

In addition, the 2024 SAFE report also considered potential concerns about the salmon prey available to endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales. This endangered species occupies Northern Cook Inlet, including the far reaches of the Inlet when coho salmon runs are present.

Comment 5: NMFS should reduce the TAC amounts in the 2024 harvest specifications based on recommendations from the Council's AP, the full Council, and public comment.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the support for the TAC amounts based on the OFLs and ABCs recommended by the SSC and the TACs recommended by the AP. However, the Council ultimately did not recommend any harvest specifications. NMFS did consider all feedback received at the February 2024 Council meeting when establishing these harvest specifications.

Comment 6: NMFS violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to consider alternatives other than its chosen TAC.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The Analysis analyzed the harvest specifications process and expected outcomes, including the likely TAC amounts which were expected to be near existing harvest levels, as well as alternatives to these TACs. These harvest specifications are consistent with that analysis. TACs are the result of a scientifically driven process following the National Standard 1 guidelines for determining OFL and ABC. TACs are then set below the OFL and ABC to ensure that the ABC and ACL are not exceeded after accounting for management uncertainty, as well as other social, economic, and ecological factors (50 CFR 600.310(g)(4), 679.118(a)(2)). Prior to selecting TAC amounts for each Cook Inlet salmon stock or stock complex, NMFS considered values between zero and ABC, as well as the specific proposal provided by the Council's AP at the February 2024 Council meeting.

NMFS also considered alternative methods to establish the SDC in the Analysis, which are the measurable and objective factors ( e.g., maximum fishing mortality threshold, OFL, and minimum stock size threshold) that NMFS uses to determine if overfishing has occurred, or if the stock or stock complex is overfished. The harvest specifications implement the preferred alternative from the Analysis (see section 2.5: Alternative 3, Federal management). Further, NMFS followed the harvest specifications process analyzed as an alternative in the Analysis by providing a draft SAFE report to the SSC for their consideration in establishing the SDC. The SSC recommended ABCs for each stock or stock complex and, after the Council failed to take action in recommending TACs, NMFS proposed TACs in consideration of public testimony and based on the tier system described in both the Analysis (section 2.5.2.2) and the final 2024 SAFE report. NMFS is publishing these final harvest specifications after consideration of public comment and consistent with the process established under amendment 16 and implementing regulation (50 CFR 679.118(a)(b)). The responses to comments 2, 11, and 12 include discussion of the tier system used to establish TACs in further detail.

Comment 7: The TAC is much lower than the usual harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and will make the fishery economically unviable. The projected TAC is so low that it could be caught in just a few openers.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the TAC amounts in these harvest specifications are much lower than the usual harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and will make fishing economically inviable. The salmon TACs NMFS approves in these harvest specifications are commensurate with, if not slightly higher than, the recent 10-year average of EEZ harvests. For example, the 10-year average harvest of sockeye salmon in the EEZ is estimated to be approximately 397,393 fish while the proposed EEZ TAC of sockeye salmon is 492,100 fish. The appendices in the 2024 SAFE detail total catch, estimated EEZ catch, and cumulative EEZ catch for each stock or aggregate stock.

Further, given the ADF&G's current conservation measures for depressed stocks of Chinook and coho salmon, it is expected that continued State of Alaska management of commercial fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ would have resulted in similar or lower catch amounts in the EEZ area for this fishing year in order to meet escapement goals and provide some harvestable surplus to the greatest range of users. Thus, compared to baseline conditions— i.e., salmon management in the Cook Inlet EEZ by the State of Alaska—these EEZ harvest limits are not expected to have adverse economic impacts. Further, NMFS cannot authorize harvests above these limits without a serious risk that weaker stocks would miss their escapement goals, possibly resulting in overfishing, as well as serious economic impacts to other users also dependent on these salmon stocks after they have moved through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area.

Comment 8: NMFS is interpreting “conservative management” as solely based on a TAC rather than recognizing the importance of harvest rates in conjunction with net length, run timing, and the Conservation Corridor as components of conservative management.

Response: NMFS disagrees. As described in the response to comments 3 and 7, the TACs were established with conservative buffers accounting for scientific and management uncertainty in the context of the management measures implemented by amendment 16 in Federal regulations. NMFS expects that the TACs implemented in these harvest specifications are attainable, while also protective of weaker stocks, based on the best scientific available information ( e.g., run timing) and based on expected effort under the regulations established by amendment 16 ( e.g., net size). Other management measures and the rationale for selecting them is described in the final rule implementing amendment 16, but are outside the scope of this rule.

Comment 9: The harvest specifications violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act by providing the commercial fishing sector with an insufficient percentage of total available salmon for harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The Magnuson-Stevens Act does not require that NMFS allocate a specific percentage of the harvest to the commercial fishing sector. Nonetheless, NMFS expects that over 99.9 percent of the salmon harvested in Cook Inlet EEZ Area will be harvested by the commercial salmon fishery sector, consistent with historical trends and all applicable Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. Further, the TACs will provide fishermen an opportunity to harvest salmon commensurate with, if not slightly higher than, the recent 10-year average of EEZ harvests, as explained in the response to comment 7.

Comment 10: NMFS should work with ADF&G to develop indicator stocks to determine strength in the Susitna River drainages.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that there are information gaps for management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks, however this rule is based on the best scientific information currently available, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). As with all other federally-managed fisheries, NMFS will work with stakeholders, other government agencies, Alaska Native Tribes, and academic institutions to improve the level of scientific information available to manage this fishery over time to the extent practicable.

Comment 11: Not adding in the number of fish counted over the upper escapement goal which entered the river each year into any data formula for a TAC is an unacceptable oversight.

Response: The comment does not describe or recommend a formula by which escapements beyond the upper bound of the escapement goal should be considered in setting a TAC, whether such a count should be used to re-evaluate a TAC inseason, or whether the commenter wishes for such a count to be applied to TAC setting in future years. As described in the final 2024 SAFE report, for Tier 1 stocks, the SAFE report does consider the total run size, including harvests and escapement, of each salmon stock in determining the OFL and the SSC's recommended ABC, which formed the basis of TAC in the proposed harvest specifications. In setting harvest limits for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, NMFS considers escapement in prior years in the stock assessment, which informs the SAFE's forecast of total run size for the current fishing year, and the expected impact of each salmon fishery. This addresses the expected impact of escapement values, including those in excess of escapement goals, on future run sizes, as well the impact of management on fishery harvests of each salmon stock. While this approach does indicate that some stocks may be able to support additional harvest, NMFS must also consider the uncertainty associated with all of this information and account for weaker stocks that would also be harvested concurrently. Data on total returns, harvest, and escapement for the 2024 fishing season will be considered in the 2025 harvest specifications to improve management and utilization, subject to the constraints of uncertainty as well as ensuring a harvestable surplus for other salmon users.

For Tier 2 stocks the SAFE report identifies these as salmon stocks that would be managed as a stock complex, where specific tributaries or drainages serve as indicator stocks to estimate stock-specific harvest levels. However, the SAFE report did not recommend any stock or stock complex be designated as Tier 2, because there may be many tributaries for which spawning escapements are not assessed or are assessed with methods for which the total numbers of spawners cannot be estimated with high precision. Tier 2 may be used in future years as the Federal fishery develops and management is able to improve with additional years of data.

There are currently no reliable estimates of total number of spawners or total run size for the entire stocks and stock complexes in Tier 3; therefore, historical harvest data were used in determining the OFLs for Tier 3 stocks and stock complexes as described in the final 2024 SAFE report and Salmon FMP. The ABC for Tier 3 was reduced from the OFL by a scientifically-informed buffer, which is conservative due to the lack of reliable information for Tier 3 stocks. The buffers are discussed further in response to comment 2. The methodology of using historical harvest for data-limited stocks is consistent with the calculation of OFL for data-limited stocks managed under other FMPs ( e.g., the FMPs for groundfish), as is the use of conservative buffers ( e.g., up to 75% reduction from OFL in setting ABC) for the calculation of ABC ( e.g., crab species managed under the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs).

Comment 12: We urge NMFS to use the mid-range of escapement goals instead of the low-end and consider trends in weak stocks when setting their TAC.

Response: For Tier 1 stocks, NMFS had originally recommended using the lower bound of the escapement goal to calculate SDC and associated harvest specifications to the SSC at the February 2024 Council meeting. Under section 302(h)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the SSC provides recommendations for ABC and OFL that prevent overfishing. The SSC reviewed all available information and instead recommended that SDC and harvest specifications for the 2024 fishing season be based on the number of spawners necessary to achieve maximum sustainable yield (S MSY ). Using S MSY resulted in a lower (more conservative) ABC for Tier 1 stocks than if the lower bound of the escapement goals were used. NMFS then set the TACs below the ABCs recommended by the SSC.

For Tier 2 stocks that are managed as a stock complex, escapement is an index of spawners that may represent an unknown portion of the overall escapement. However, the SAFE report did not recommend any stock or stock complex be designated as Tier 2 (see response to comment 11). For Tier 3 stocks, escapement data is poor and NMFS currently cannot produce reliable estimates of abundance and instead relies of historical harvest rates when recommending the OFL. ABCs for Tier 3 stocks are reduced from OFL based on an appropriate buffer that accounts for scientific uncertainty. NMFS then set the TACs for Tier 3 stocks below the ABCs recommended by the SSC.

Comment 13: The proposed TACs will continue the trend of gross over-escapements resulting in fewer fish returning in subsequent years, reduced future returns, wasted foregone yield that is a National food source, a waste of interstate commerce, and an economic disaster for fisherman and the communities.

Response: NMFS disagrees that escapements that exceed the current goals are certain or will necessarily lead to negative impacts on the ecosystem. The majority of Cook Inlet salmon harvests occur within State of Alaska waters and management. In establishing harvest specifications, NMFS considers the scientific and management uncertainty present, and the risk that the number of returning salmon will be lower than forecasted. Because salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area harvests target salmon runs before all other users in Cook Inlet, it is essential to ensure that enough salmon of all stocks can pass through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area to meet escapement goals, while also accounting for all subsequent mortality. Any salmon surplus to escapement goals may still be harvested in State of Alaska waters after moving through the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Moreover, NMFS disagrees that escapement in excess of current goals will necessarily negatively impact future salmon abundance.

In appendix 14 of the Analysis, the Kenai and Kasilof sections of the 2024 SAFE report, and responses to comments in the amendment 16 final rule address the topic of whether sockeye salmon spawning escapements above the upper bound of the escapement goal ( i.e., “over-escapements”) result in fewer returning adult fish in subsequent years ( i.e., density dependent effects, otherwise known as overcompensation). Sockeye salmon spawning escapements above the upper bound of the spawning escapement goals were included in spawner-recruitment analyses in the Analysis and the SAFE. These larger spawning escapements have generally resulted in substantial yields of adult sockeye salmon in future years, and, therefore, do not suggest that “over-escapement” has resulted in density dependent effects. NMFS will continue to monitor spawner-recruitment trends and will adjust its status determination criteria and harvest specifications recommendations to the SSC if density dependent effects become evident.

Comment 14: The proposed harvest specifications do not meet National Standard 1 requirements to manage the fishery based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or that optimum yield (OY) will be achieved on a continuous basis.

Response: NMFS disagrees. National Standard 1 states that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. Under the National Standard 1 guidelines, OY is prescribed on the basis of MSY. NMFS defined both OY and MSY under amendment 16; neither are annual management targets and both definitions are outside the scope of these harvest specifications. However, these harvest specifications are consistent with National Standard 1 because they will prevent overfishing while remaining consistent with NMFS's obligation to achieve OY on a continuing basis over the long term. NMFS established these harvest specifications to prevent overfishing while considering all salmon stocks harvested, the limitations of weak stock management, scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and harvest in other salmon fisheries, as well as social, economic, and other ecological factors.

While the SSC's harvest level recommendations account for scientific uncertainty, they do not account for management uncertainty. NMFS must account for an additional layer of management uncertainty through a reduction in harvest between ABC and TAC, as required by National Standard 1 (50 CFR 600.310(f)(1)(v), (g)(4)). As a result of this combination of factors, NMFS appropriately set TAC amounts for each species.

Further, the summed TAC amounts across all species fall within the OY range established by amendment 16 and can be achieved by the management measures implemented by amendment 16. This action does not modify OY. To the extent this comment is asserting that MSY and OY are improperly established, that is outside of the scope of this action and is addressed in the amendment 16 final rule.

Comment 15: The harvest specifications do not comply with the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, the 10 National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or other applicable laws.

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS developed amendment 16 to comply with the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable Federal law. NMFS considered all Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for FMPs and balanced the competing demands of the National Standards in section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act when developing amendment 16. NMFS found amendment 16 to be consistent with all 10 National Standards, as detailed in section 5.1 of the Analysis and further addressed in responses to comments on the amendment 16 final rule under the National Standard headings.

The harvest specifications are required to implement amendment 16 and allow a fishery to open. NMFS cannot open a fishery without harvest specifications. NMFS has determined that the harvest specifications comply with the National Standards. These harvest specifications result in harvest limits that fall within the OY range established for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, can be achieved, and are expected to prevent overfishing on all stocks. The response to comment 14 provides additional detail on consistency with National Standard 1.

Consistent with National Standard 2 and as described in section 1 of the 2024 SAFE, the data, estimates, and analyses used to conduct stock assessment analyses are based upon the best scientific information available, including a rigorous scientific stock assessment and review process. Furthermore, tier selection for all stocks, methods used to determine harvest specifications, MSY, OFL, and ABC were reviewed by the SSC and incorporated their recommendations on fishing levels. The response to comment 18 provides additional discussion of the scientific basis of these harvest specifications.

Consistent with National Standard 3, this action manages all salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under NMFS's jurisdiction, while considering all other fishing and management, to ensure that no stocks are subject to overfishing or are overfished, and to achieve OY.

Consistent with National Standard 4, these harvest specifications do not discriminate between residents of different states. The specifications do not allocate or assign any fishing privileges among fishermen, as only one sector may commercially harvest salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Regardless, these harvest specifications are fair and equitable to all fishery participants by maintaining historical harvest proportions and levels, are reasonably calculated to promote conservation by avoiding overfishing, and ensure that no entity acquires an excessive share of harvest privileges.

National Standard 5 states that conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. This action allows for efficient and historically-consistent commercial drift gillnet harvest of nearly all salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, subject to the constraints of scientific/management uncertainty, weak stock management, allowing for escapement needs, and allowing for a harvestable surplus for other users.

Consistent with National Standard 6, these harvest specifications account for and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches and—as required by the National Standard 6 guidelines—provide “a suitable buffer in favor of conservation” in light of significant scientific and management uncertainties (see 50 CFR 600.335(c)).

These harvest specifications impose no costs and are not duplicative of any other management measures and are therefore consistent with National Standard 7.

Consistent with National Standard 8, these harvest specifications maintain historical access to the resource for all fishing communities in Cook Inlet, consistent with current conservation conditions. This includes maintaining conditions for fishing communities dependent on salmon fishing in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area as well as salmon fishing within State of Alaska waters.

Consistent with National Standard 9, this action minimizes bycatch and bycatch mortality by establishing salmon TACs that can be achieved without additional or different fishing effort that would increase bycatch.

Consistent with National Standard 10, this action promotes safety by establishing TACs that can be achieved during the summer period of relatively good weather.

Comment 16: The Ninth Circuit Court said to not use ADF&G's data to determine a TAC as it has parochial concerns. All of the years used for data to set the TACs were negatively affected by political management and should not legally be used for science.

Response: NMFS is not relying on ADF&G's data to determine TACs for any salmon stocks in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, but rather is making determinations based on the best scientific data available as described in the SAFE report and the Analysis (see response to comment 15). The SAFE report generally uses catch and escapement data from 1999 to 2023 because the data from these years are representative of the current biological and environmental conditions affecting salmon productivity. Also, the data from these years are representative of how the salmon fisheries throughout Cook Inlet have developed and changed over time. This is also the period for which high quality and comparable data for all Cook Inlet salmon fisheries was available. The Analysis considers harvest and management data back to 1966. This is consistent with the SAFE report and harvest specification approach for all other federally-managed fisheries in the Alaska Region, which have changed over time in response to biological, environmental, social, and economic factors. In addition, the catch and escapement data used in the SAFE report and Analysis were peer reviewed and approved by the SSC, which agreed that the data constitutes the best scientific information available. Ultimately, data on past catch and escapement represents facts about the catch and escapement that occurred during those years. No political decisions are relevant to the reliability of data regarding total run sizes or escapement or other indices of abundance during the selected time series. Finally, the commenter identified no other sources of data that NMFS could have used.

Comment 17: This rule as presented simply adds to the long-term negative impact on the health of the Alaska Native communities around Cook Inlet.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the importance of salmon to Alaska Native communities and citizens in the Cook Inlet, and when there are declines in salmon abundance, it results in adverse impacts to Alaska Native communities and citizens. As described in the response to comment 7, these harvest specifications are expected to maintain salmon harvests in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area near recent historical levels. They are also expected to maintain existing salmon harvest opportunities in State of Alaska waters throughout Cook Inlet. To the extent this comment is referring to the impacts of amendment 16, these are addressed under the Tribal Summary Impact Statement and Tribal Comments headings of the amendment 16 final rule. For discussion of the potential economic impacts on communities from this action, see sections 4.7.1.3 to 4.7.1.4 and section 4.6.4 of the Analysis.

Comment 18: NMFS proposes that it applies the best scientific information available, the unfortunate fact is that there is very limited science available. ADF&G tracks what is caught in Cook Inlet, but there has been no effort to track what is caught specifically in Federal EEZ waters, or when, or how many vessels and permits have been applied to the catch effort. The proposed harvest specifications are not based on the best scientific information or in fact any scientific information or data.

Response: NMFS used the best scientific information available to inform estimates of previous harvests within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, which includes comprehensive fish ticket data including locale codes. It is always possible to develop better information, but NMFS must make management decisions based on the best scientific information available rather than the best scientific information possible. The National Standard 2 guideline instructs NMFS to account for the risks associated with scientific uncertainty and data gaps—which it did here—and acknowledges simpler methodologies or greater proxies may be needed for data-poor fisheries (50 CFR 600.315(a)(2)-(3)). Previously, data regarding harvests, landings, and statistical areas in Upper Cook Inlet were not required to and did not differentiate between State of Alaska and Federal waters. Therefore, NMFS had to develop a methodology to estimate historical salmon harvest in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. The methodology used to develop harvest estimates for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area is presented in section 4.5.1.2.3 of the Analysis, along with a description of the associated uncertainties. This method and the results were peer reviewed and approved by the SSC, which agreed that the Analysis and harvest specification process rely on the best scientific information available. NMFS received no comments providing additional data to estimate EEZ harvest and no suggested alternate methodologies. NMFS cannot arbitrarily increase the attribution of historical harvest to the EEZ in the absence of any supporting data. Therefore, NMFS determined that the estimates presented in the Analysis constitute the best scientific information available. See the response to comment 15 for additional discussion on National Standard 2.

The 2024 SAFE report describes the State of Alaska's stock definitions, including the data, estimates, and analyses used to conduct stock assessments are: (1) accurate, thorough, and complete (including documenting when escapement estimates were partial or missing due to various circumstances); and (2) based upon the best scientific information available, including a rigorous scientific stock assessment and review process. The 2024 SAFE report also describes that, given the stock assessment results, the resulting escapement targets represent ranges that are likely to result in sustainable returns for all stocks, and maximum yield (at the stock level) for those stocks with available spawner-recruitment information. The equations used to propose SDC and harvest specifications for the 2024 SAFE report include escapement targets and—for Tier 1 stocks—associated point estimates of the number of spawners likely to result in the MSY. These equations are consistent with National Standard 1 and 2 guidelines. The Federal stock definitions in the 2024 SAFE report are based on several considerations, including: (1) the availability and specificity of preseason forecasts; (2) the practical limitations, including current genetics limitations, of monitoring and accounting for the harvest of specific stocks of the same species in a mixed-stock fishery; (3) the relative quality of the historical harvest records estimated to have occurred in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area during previous years; and (4) other considerations. Data collected by NMFS during the 2024 and future fishing years are expected to improve the scientific information available for management of Cook Inlet salmon stocks. NMFS will collect the landings information needed to directly and precisely determine EEZ harvests. NMFS will review the information available to manage Cook Inlet salmon stocks each year, including any data gaps and uncertainties. As data are collected on harvest that occurs solely within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, NMFS will include that information in its ongoing assessment of what constitutes best available science for future management decisions.

Comment 19: In its 2024 SAFE report, NMFS fails to mention OY even once, demonstrating that the chosen OY metric is not even scientifically significant when discussing yield and harvest specifications. Rather than discussing the chosen metric of OY, NMFS uses the term “potential yield,” which appears closer to an actual Magnuson-Stevens Act compliant definition of optimum yield for the “fishery.” NMFS's SAFE also clearly demonstrates the wasted yield that could be potential yield in the EEZ. The SAFE appendix A1.1 shows the potential yield—after escapement, State of Alaska waters catch, and EEZ catch—in the EEZ for the last two decades.

Response: This action does not modify OY. To the extent this comment is asserting that MSY and OY are improperly established, that is outside of the scope of this action and addressed in the amendment 16 final rule.

OY is not an annual management target that is addressed in a SAFE report, but rather is a long-term objective (50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)(ii)). Consistent with SAFE reports for all other federally-managed fish and shellfish stocks in the North Pacific, there is limited or no discussion of OY in the Cook Inlet salmon SAFE report. SAFE reports summarize the best scientific information available concerning the past, present, and possible future condition of the stocks, marine ecosystems, and fisheries that are managed under Federal regulation. It provides information to the Council and NMFS for recommending and implementing, respectively, annual harvest levels from each stock, documenting significant trends or changes in the resource, marine ecosystems, and fishery over time, and assessing the relative success of existing State of Alaska and Federal fishery management programs. A SAFE report can provide important information to NMFS or a Council in determining whether the management regime can achieve OY as defined in an FMP, or whether changes to management measures or the OY may be warranted, consistent with the National Standard 1 guidelines. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and based on the best available scientific information, NMFS and the Council can revise as appropriate an OY, but such changes are outside the scope of these harvest specifications.

For 2024, the sum of the final TAC amounts across all species, under these final harvest specifications, fall within the OY range established by amendment 16, and can be achieved by the management measures implemented by amendment 16. However, as stated above, OY remains a long-term objective, but is not an annual requirement (50 CFR 600.310(e)(3)(ii)).

NMFS undertook a thorough review of the relevant comments received during the public comment period. However, for reasons described in the preceding section, NMFS made no changes to the proposed rule.

NMFS is issuing this final rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable laws.

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 because it only implements annual catch limits for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery.

NMFS prepared an EA for amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP, which included analysis of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon harvest specifications process and expected harvest levels (see ADDRESSES ) and made it available to the public (see the amendment 16 final rule at 89 FR 34718, April 30, 2024; see also the proposed rule at 88 FR 72314, October 19, 2023). The final EA analyzes the environmental, social, and economic consequences of the amendment 16, including the salmon harvest specifications, on resources in the action area. In the final rule implementing amendment 16, NMFS considered and addressed the public comments received during the comment period for the amendment 16 proposed rule, as is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Salmon FMP, and other applicable law, and a final EA and finding of no significant impact, as is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulations, prior to the publication of the final harvest specifications.

In accordance with 50 CFR 679.118(c)(1)(i), NMFS will prohibit fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area if NMFS determines that any salmon TAC has been or may be reached for any salmon species or stock. NMFS may also make adjustments to a TAC for any salmon species or stock, or open or close a season, in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, if necessary to prevent underharvest of a TAC or to prevent overfishing, consistent with § 679.25. Changes to the salmon fisheries in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area will be posted at the following website under the Alaska filter for Management Areas: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/rules-and-announcements/bulletins.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this action. Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 604) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA. The following constitutes the FRFA prepared for these final 2024 harvest specifications.

Section 604 of the RFA describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) a statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

A description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are included at the beginning of the preamble in the Background section to this final rule and are not repeated here.

NMFS published the proposed rule on April 12, 2024 (89 FR 25857). NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to accompany the proposed action, and included the IRFA in the proposed rule. The comment period closed on May 13, 2024. No comments were received on the IRFA or on the economic impacts of the rule on a general level.

The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and has combined annual gross receipts not in excess of 11 million dollars for all its affiliated operations worldwide. In addition, the Small Business Administration has established a small business size standard applicable to charter fishing vessels (NAICS code 713990) of 9 million dollars.

This final rule directly regulates commercial salmon fishing vessels that operate in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, and charter guides and charter businesses fishing for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Because NMFS expects the State of Alaska to maintain current requirements for commercial salmon fishing vessels landing any salmon in upper Cook Inlet to hold a CFEC S03H permit, NMFS does not expect participation from non-S03H permit holders in the federally-managed salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. Therefore, the number of S03H permit holders represents the maximum number of directly regulated entities for the commercial salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. From 2018 to 2022, there was an average of 567 S03H permits in circulation, with an average of 325 active permit holders, all of which are considered small entities based on the 11 million dollar threshold. The evaluation of the number of directly regulated small entities and their revenue was conducted via custom query by staff of the Alaska Fish Information Network utilizing both ADF&G and Fish Ticket revenue data and the CFEC permits database. Similarly, the Analysis prepared for amendment 16 provides the most recent tabulation of commercial charter vessels that could potentially fish for salmon within the Cook Inlet EEZ Area (see ADDRESSES ).

The commercial fishing entities directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications are the entities operating vessels with Salmon Federal fisheries permits (SFFPs) catching salmon in Federal waters. For purposes of this analysis, NMFS assumes that the number of small entities with SFFPs that are directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications is the average number of S03H permits in circulation ( i.e., 567 permits). This may be an overstatement of the number of directly-regulated small entities since some entities may hold more than one permit.

The commercial charter fishing entities directly regulated by the salmon harvest specifications are the entities that hold commercial charter licenses and that choose to fish for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area where these harvest specifications will apply. Salmon charter operators are required to register with the State of Alaska annually and the numbers of registered charter operators in the Cook Inlet area varies. Available data indicates that, from 2015 to present, the total number of directly regulated charter vessel small entities that have participated in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area has been as high as 91. However, from 2019 to 2021, there was an average of 58 charter guides that fished for salmon at least once in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. All of these entities, if they choose to fish in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, are directly regulated by this action and all are considered small entities based on the 9 million dollar threshold.

This action does not modify recordkeeping or reporting requirements or duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The action under consideration is the final 2024 harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery. The TAC is set to reduce the risk of overfishing without the benefit of inseason harvest data but remains commensurate with or slightly above the recent 10-year average estimated EEZ harvest.

This action is necessary to establish harvest limits for Cook Inlet salmon harvested within the EEZ during the 2024 fishing years and is taken in accordance with the Salmon FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The establishment of the harvest specifications is governed by the process for determining harvest levels for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area in the FMP. Under this process, harvest specifications typically will be made annually for specifying the OFL, ABC, and TAC. This includes identifying the stocks and stock complexes for which specifications are made. Salmon stocks or stock complexes may be split or combined for purposes of establishing a new harvest specification unit if such action is desirable based on the commercial importance of a stock or stock complex, or if sufficient biological information is available to manage a stock or stock complex as a single unit. Those stocks and stock complexes also will be separated into three tiers based on the level of information available for each stock and stock complex, and the corresponding tier is used to calculating OFL and ABC.

For each stock and stock complex, NMFS will establish harvest specifications prior to the commercial salmon fishing season. To inform the harvest specifications, NMFS will prepare the annual SAFE report, based on the best available scientific information at the time it is prepared, for review by the SSC, AP, and the Council. The SAFE report will provide information needed for: (1) determining annual harvest specifications; (2) documenting significant trends or changes in the stocks, marine ecosystem, and fisheries over time; and (3) assessing the performance of existing State of Alaska and Federal fishery management programs. The SAFE report will provide a summary of the most recent biological condition of the salmon stocks, including all reference points, and the social and economic condition of the fishing and processing industries.

For the 2024 salmon specifications, NMFS prepared the draft SAFE and consulted with the Council consistent with amendment 16 and the implementing regulations. The final TACs are based on the SAFE report, which represents the best scientific information currently available for the stock and stock complexes identified by NMFS. The SSC reviewed the stock structure and associated tiers for each stock and stock complex. In February 2024, NMFS consulted with the Council, but the Council ultimately did not recommend any harvest specifications. However, the SSC recommended OFLs and ABCs. NMFS is publishing the OFLs, ABCs, and TACs as informed by the recommendations of the SSC and the consultation with the Council. The TACs are therefore consistent with the process for determining harvest levels for salmon in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area under amendment 16 and the supporting Analysis.

The OFLs and ABCs are based on recommendations prepared by NMFS in January 2024 and were reviewed by the Council's SSC in February 2024. The 2024 OFLs and ABCs are based on the best available science and revised analyses to calculate stock abundance. The 2024 OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the biological condition of the salmon stocks as described in the 2024 SAFE report, which is the most recent SAFE report.

Under this action, the ABCs reflect harvest amounts that are less than the specified OFLs. The TACs set by NMFS do not exceed the biological limits ( i.e., the ABCs and OFLs) recommended by the SSC. The TACs are adjusted to account for other social and economic considerations consistent with Salmon FMP goals for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area and implementing regulations that annual TAC determinations would be made based on social and economic considerations, including the need to promote efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources ( e.g., minimizing costs; the desire to conserve, protect, and rebuild depleted salmon stocks; the importance of a salmon fishery to harvesters, processors, local communities, and other salmon users in Cook Inlet; and the need to promote utilization of certain species) (see 50 CFR 679.118(a)(2)(ii)). The TACs are less than the ABCs to more comprehensively address management uncertainty and associated conservation concerns, as well as social, economic, and ecological considerations.

This action is economically beneficial to entities operating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery, including small entities. The action adopts TACs for commercially-valuable salmon and salmon stocks and would allow for the prosecution of the salmon fishery in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, thereby creating the opportunity for fishery revenue. The TACs set by NMFS for each commercially-valuable salmon stock or stock complex, except for aggregate coho, are higher than the recent ten-year average catch estimated to have been harvested in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, which may help to reduce foregone yield and allow for additional harvest opportunity. For each salmon species for which NMFS establishes harvest specifications, NMFS determined the final TACs will provide harvest opportunities for entities operating in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area, including small entities. These TACs cannot be set higher because the biological condition of each species does not support a higher TAC. For these reasons, there are no alternative TACs that would reduce impacts to small entities.

In sum, based upon the best scientific information available and in consideration of the objectives for this final action, it appears that there are no significant alternatives to this final rule for salmon harvest specifications that have the potential to comply with applicable court rulings, accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other statutes, and minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the action on small entities while preventing overfishing. After public process during which the Council and NMFS solicited input from stakeholders and after consultation with the Council, NMFS sets TACs that NMFS has determined would best accomplish the stated objectives articulated in the preamble for this final rule, and in applicable statutes, and would minimize to the extent practicable adverse economic impacts on the universe of directly regulated small entities.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness for this rule because delaying this rule is contrary to the public interest. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds that the need to establish final total allowable catch amounts in the Cook Inlet EEZ Area makes it contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of the final harvest specifications for 30 days. If the final harvest specifications are not effective by the start of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery as required by 50 CFR 679.118(e), the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon fishery will not be able to operate under Federal management as required by court order. Immediate effectiveness of the final 2024 harvest specifications will allow the Federal fishery to start on June 20, 2024, thus preventing confusion between management by the State of Alaska and Federal governments. In addition, immediate effectiveness of this action is required to provide consistent management and conservation of fishery resources based on the best available scientific information, and to give the fishing industry the earliest possible opportunity to plan its fishing operations. These final harvest specifications, as well as the earlier proposed harvest specifications, were developed as quickly as possible. The SSC provided peer review of the SAFE report at the February 2024 Council meeting, the earliest meeting at which that scientific information was available. Relying on SSC advice, NMFS revised the SAFE report and drafted proposed harvest specifications, which it published on April 12, 2024. NMFS then offered a 30-day public comment period on the proposed harvest specifications, which closed on May 13, 2024. After the close of the comment period, NMFS developed the final harvest specifications as quickly as possible, responding to all comments, to ensure the specifications could be implemented by the June 20, 2024 opening date for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area commercial fishery.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The table contained in this final rule is provided online and serves as the plain language guide to assist small entities in complying with this final rule as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule's primary purpose is to announce the final 2024 harvest specifications for the salmon fishery of the Cook Inlet EEZ Area. This action is necessary to establish harvest limits and associated management measures for salmon during the 2024 fishing year, and to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Salmon FMP. This action affects all fishermen who participate in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. The specific OFLs, ABCs, and TACs, are provided in table 1 in this final rule to assist the reader. This final rule also contains plain language summaries of the underlying relevant regulations supporting the harvest specifications and the harvest of salmon in the Cook Inlet area that the reader may find helpful.

Information to assist small entities in complying with this final rule is provided online. The OFL, ABC, and TAC table is individually available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/commercial-fishing/cook-inlet-salmon-harvest-specifications. Harvest specification changes are also available from the same online source, which includes applicable Federal Register notices, information bulletins, and other supporting materials. NMFS will announce other closures or openings of directed fishing in the Federal Register and information bulletins released by the Alaska Region. Affected fishermen should keep themselves informed of such actions.