I. Background Information

On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all States, territories, and the District of Columbia. With the COVID-19 emergency, many small businesses nationwide are experiencing economic hardship as a direct result of the Federal, State, tribal, and local public health measures that are being taken to minimize the public's exposure to the virus. These measures, some of which are government-mandated, are being implemented nationwide and include the closures of restaurants, bars, and gyms. In addition, based on the advice of public health officials, other measures, such as keeping a safe distance from others or even stay-at-home orders, are being implemented, resulting in a dramatic decrease in economic activity as the public avoids malls, retail stores, and other businesses.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) (Pub. L. 116-136) to provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The Small Business Administration (SBA) received funding and authority through the CARES Act to modify existing loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. Section 1102 of the CARES Act temporarily permits SBA to guarantee 100 percent of 7(a) loans under a new program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Section 1106 of the CARES Act provides for forgiveness of up to the full principal amount of qualifying loans guaranteed under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). On April 24, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 116-139), which provided additional funding and authority for the PPP.

Prior to the CARES Act, nonprofit organizations were not eligible to participate in SBA's 7(a) Loan Program (15 U.S.C. 636(a)). Section 1102 of the CARES Act expanded eligibility, limited to PPP, to include certain nonprofit organizations, among other organizations.

SBA regulations at 13 CFR part 113 impose regulatory requirements “to reflect to the fullest extent possible the nondiscrimination policies of the Federal Government as expressed in the several statutes, Executive Orders, and messages of the President dealing with civil rights and equality of opportunity.” 13 CFR 113.1(a). But because SBA's loan programs previously served business entities, these regulations did not restate certain limitations and exemptions under federal law primarily pertinent to certain faith-based or nonprofit organizations. In particular, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 permits single-sex admissions practices by preschools, non-vocational elementary or secondary schools, and private undergraduate higher education institutions. See 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(1). Additionally, the Fair Housing Act of 1968 allows religious organizations to reserve housing for coreligionists, see 42 U.S.C. 3607, and allows for single-sex emergency shelters that provide refuge to abused women (or abused men), see 24 CFR 5.106; see also Johnson v. Dixon, 786 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1991) (“It is . . . doubtful [that] `emergency overnight shelter,' . . . can be characterized as a `dwelling' within the meaning of the [Fair Housing] Act.”). Finally, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 requires certain placement preferences in the foster care and adoptions of Indian children. See 25 U.S.C. 1915. The broadly worded SBA regulations do not articulate these limitations on the application of the relevant nondiscrimination provisions.

In addition, there is a technical discrepancy between SBA's religious employer exemption at 13 CFR 113.3-1(h) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which allows religious employers to make hiring decisions according to their religious beliefs with respect to all “activities,” not just “religious activities.” See An Act to further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers, Public Law 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, 104 (1972), codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a).

Given these various discrepancies, organizations have accordingly faced uncertainty about whether their participation in the PPP program would require them to substantially change their operations for a short period of months. These types of changes are impossible for some organizations, and impractical for many. This uncertainty risks frustrating the purpose of the CARES Act, which was to afford swift stopgap relief to Americans who might otherwise lose their jobs or businesses because of the economic hardships wrought by the response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. To provide certainty to applicants and recipients of loans and loan forgiveness under the PPP, and to address the large-scale burdens that SBA regulations may impose on recipients participating only on a short-term basis, this interim final rule provides guidance that for purposes of the PPP, nonprofits must meet their nondiscrimination obligations under existing Federal laws and Executive Orders. This interim final rule also provides guidance with respect to the religious employer exemption to ensure harmony with Section 702 of Title VII.

In addition, as described below, to enable certain eligible small educational institutions to participate in PPP, this interim final rule provides that institutions of higher education shall exclude work study students when determining the number of employees for purposes of PPP loan eligibility.

The intent of the Act is that SBA provide relief to America's small businesses expeditiously. This intent, along with the dramatic decrease in economic activity nationwide, provides good cause for SBA to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date provided in the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, it is critical to meet lenders' and borrowers' need for clarity concerning program requirements as rapidly as possible because the last day eligible borrowers can apply for and receive a loan is June 30, 2020.

This interim final rule supplements previous regulations and guidance on certain important, discrete issues. The immediate effective date of this interim final rule will benefit lenders so that they can swiftly close and disburse loans to small businesses. This interim final rule is effective without advance notice and public comment because section 1114 of the Act authorizes SBA to issue regulations to implement Title I of the Act without regard to notice requirements. In addition, SBA has determined that there is good cause for dispensing with advance public notice and comment on the ground that it would be contrary to the public interest. Specifically, SBA has determined that advance public notice and comment would delay the ability of certain organizations to implement their nondiscrimination obligations in a manner consistent with the limitations contained in existing Federal laws, and potentially force such organizations to change their operations until SBA adopted a final or interim final rule. Rather than change their operations, the affected organizations could elect not to apply for PPP loans and lay off employees, which would defeat the paycheck protection purposes of the PPP. This rule is being issued to allow for immediate implementation of this program. Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule, including section III below. These comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 2020. SBA will consider these comments and the need for making any revisions as a result of these comments.

The CARES Act was enacted to provide immediate assistance to individuals, families, and organizations affected by the COVID-19 emergency. Among the provisions contained in the CARES Act are provisions authorizing SBA to temporarily guarantee loans under the PPP. Loans under the PPP will be 100 percent guaranteed by SBA, and the full principal amount of the loans and any accrued interest may qualify for loan forgiveness. Additional information about the PPP is available in interim final rules published by SBA and the Department of the Treasury in the Federal Register (85 FR 20811, 85 FR 20817, 85 FR 21747, 85 FR 23450, 85 FR 23917, 85 FR 26321 and 85 FR 26324) (collectively, the PPP Interim Final Rules).

Are recipients of PPP loans entitled to exemptions on the grounds provided in Federal nondiscrimination laws for sex-specific admissions practices, sex-specific domestic violence shelters, coreligionist housing, or Indian tribal preferences in connection with adoption or foster care practices?

Yes. With respect to any loan or loan forgiveness under the PPP, the nondiscrimination provisions in the applicable SBA regulations incorporate the limitations and exemptions provided in corresponding Federal statutory or regulatory nondiscrimination provisions for sex-specific admissions practices at preschools, non-vocational elementary or secondary schools, and private undergraduate higher education institutions under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ), for sex-specific emergency shelters and coreligionist housing under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. ), and for adoption or foster care practices giving child placement preferences to Indian tribes under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. ).

In addition, for purposes of the PPP, SBA regulations do not bar a religious nonprofit entity from making decisions with respect to the membership or the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such nonprofit of its activities.

Do student workers count when determining the number of employees for PPP loan eligibility?

Yes, student workers generally count as employees, unless (a) the applicant is an institution of higher education, as defined in the Department of Education's Federal Work-Study regulations, 34 675.2, and (b) the student worker's services are performed as part of a Federal Work-Study Program (as defined in those regulations  1 ) or a substantially similar program of a State or political subdivision thereof. Institutions of higher education must exclude work study students when determining the number of employees for PPP loan eligibility, and must also exclude payroll costs for work study students from the calculation of payroll costs used to determine their PPP loan amount.

The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, has determined that this is a reasonable interpretation of section 1102(a) of the CARES Act's reference to “individuals employed on a full-time, part-time, or other basis.” Such programs generally provide part-time jobs for students with financial need, and their services are incident to and for the purpose of pursuing a course of study. Work study students are excluded from the definition of employees in other areas of federal law. For example, in the regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, Treasury defined an employee's “hours of service” to exclude work study hours. 2 Explaining this exclusion, the regulation's preamble states that “[t]he federal work study program, as a federally subsidized financial aid program, is distinct from traditional employment in that its primary purpose is to advance education.”  3 Similarly, student work is generally exempt from Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment taxes. 4

For similar reasons, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, has determined that a limited exception for work study is appropriate here. In particular, the Administrator recognizes that requiring institutions of higher education to count work study students towards employee headcount would result in an anomalous outcome in two respects. First, it would prevent some small educational institutions from receiving PPP loans due solely to their provision of financial aid to students in the form of work study. Second, it would result in the exclusion of small educational institutions whose part-time work study headcount dwarfs their full-time faculty and staff headcounts. Educational institutions that filed loan applications prior to the issuance of the regulation are not bound by this interpretation but may rely on it. Lenders may continue to rely on borrower certifications as part of their good faith review process.

SBA may provide further guidance, if needed, through SBA notices that will be posted on SBA's website at www.sba.gov. Questions on the Paycheck Protection Program may be directed to the Lender Relations Specialist in the local SBA Field Office. The local SBA Field Office may be found at https://www.sba.gov/tools/local-assistance/districtoffices.

This interim final rule is economically significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and is considered a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. SBA, however, is proceeding under the emergency provision at Executive Order 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(D) based on the need to move expeditiously to mitigate the current economic conditions arising from the COVID-19 emergency. This rule's designation under Executive Order 13771 will be informed by public comment.

SBA has drafted this rule, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The rule has no preemptive or retroactive effect.

SBA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various layers of government. Therefore, SBA has determined that this rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

SBA has determined that this rule will not impose new or modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when an agency issues a proposed rule, or a final rule pursuant to section 553(b) of the APA or another law, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA and publish such analysis in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. Specifically, the RFA normally requires agencies to describe the impact of a rulemaking on small entities by providing a regulatory impact analysis. Such analysis must address the consideration of regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. The RFA defines a “small entity” as (1) a proprietary firm meeting the size standards of the Small Business Administration (SBA); (2) a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its field; or (3) a small government jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). Except for such small government jurisdictions, neither State nor local governments are “small entities.” Similarly, for purposes of the RFA, individual persons are not small entities. The requirement to conduct a regulatory impact analysis does not apply if the head of the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The agency must, however, publish the certification in the Federal Register at the time of publication of the rule, “along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification.” If the agency head has not waived the requirements for a regulatory flexibility analysis in accordance with the RFA's waiver provision, and no other RFA exception applies, the agency must prepare the regulatory flexibility analysis and publish it in the Federal Register at the time of promulgation or, if the rule is promulgated in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance impracticable, within 180 days of publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 604(a), 608(b). Rules that are exempt from notice and comment are also exempt from the RFA requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. SBA Office of Advocacy guide: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Ch.1. p.9. Accordingly, SBA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Small Disadvantaged Business Program

The government promotes contracting and subcontracting with small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) by setting government-wide and agency-specific goals for the percentage of Federal contract and subcontract dollars awarded to SDBs each fiscal year. The government-wide goal is that not less than 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards be made to SDBs. At one time, SDBs had to be certified by the SBA, or by a private certifying entity acting in compliance with SBA regulations, to qualify for certain Federal programs as prime contractors. However, all Federal programs for SDB prime contractors have been discontinued, with only the government-wide and agency-specific goals for the percentage of Federal contract and/or subcontract dollars awarded to SDBs each year remaining. Pursuant to the SDB subcontracting program, Federal agencies must negotiate subcontracting plans with the apparent successful bidder or offeror on qualifying prime contracts prior to awarding the contract. Subcontracting plans set goals for the percentage of subcontract dollars to be awarded to SDBs, among others, and describe efforts that will be made to ensure that SDBs have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts. Federal agencies may also consider the extent of subcontracting with SDBs in determining to whom to award a contract or whether to give contractors monetary incentives to subcontract with SDBs.

Firms do not need to be certified SDBs to qualify for Federal programs for subcontractors. Rather, a firm may represent that it qualifies as an SDB for any Federal subcontracting program if it believes in good faith that it is owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. In addition, 8(a) Participants are deemed to be SBDs for Federal contracting purposes. As of August 8, 2019, the SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search database included 125,616 self-certified SDBs.

On February 24, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which further emphasized the goal of the Administration to alleviate the regulatory burdens placed on the public. Under Executive Order 13777, agencies must evaluate their existing regulations to determine which ones should be repealed, replaced, or modified. In doing so, agencies should focus on identifying regulations that, among other things: Eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; or are associated with Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been rescinded or substantially modified.

In response to the President's directive, SBA initiated a review of its regulations to determine which might be revised or eliminated. Based on this analysis, SBA has identified unnecessary provisions that can be removed from the CFR. First, this rule removes 13 CFR 124.516—which states that the procuring activity decides all contract disputes arising between an 8(a) Participant and a procuring activity contracting officer after the award of an 8(a) contract—because this provision is redundant. 13 CFR 124.512 already delegates 8(a) contract administration functions to procuring agencies and contract dispute resolution is an element of contract administration.

Second, this rule removes 13 CFR 124.1002 through 124.1016. As discussed below, these provisions pertain to the Small Disadvantaged Business Program, which is no longer a viable program. Section 1207 of the 1987 Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 99-661, codified in 10 U.S.C. 2323) established a statutory 5 percent goal for all Department of Defense (DOD) contracts to be awarded to small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs). To this end, the statute authorized the award of contracts to SDBs using less than full and open competitive procedures. Specifically, DOD implemented regulations requiring a contracting officer to set-aside a procurement for exclusive competition among SDBs whenever market research identified two or more SDBs that could perform the contract at a fair and reasonable price. In addition, SDBs would receive a 10 percent price evaluation adjustment for offers submitted in an unrestricted or full and open competition. DOD's SDB program was initially a self-certification program. SBA established eligibility criteria, but firms self-certified their SDB status for particular procurements. However, SBA was responsible for processing SDB status protests and appeals filed in connection with individual contracts.

In 1994, Congress extended the authority granted to DOD to all Federal agencies through enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) (Pub. L. 103-355). However, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), President Clinton directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to work with Federal agencies to conduct a review of all race and gender conscious Federal contracting programs and implement necessary regulatory reforms to comply with the Court's ruling. Regulations to implement FASA were delayed until completion of this review.

On May 23, 1996, DOJ proposed reforms to these Federal preferential contracting programs (61 FR 26042-63). Among other things, DOJ placed the SDB set-aside authority in abeyance pending further review, which left the price evaluation adjustment for SBDs on full and open competitions as the primary benefit for SDBs. DOJ further proposed governmental SDB certification for all firms seeking to submit offers as SDBs for Federal prime contracts and subcontracts. Agencies were given the option to implement a certification program or enter into an agreement with SBA under which SBA would make all determinations of SDB eligibility. However, agencies were strongly encouraged to defer to SBA's experience on matters related to SDB eligibility. SBA published regulations governing its SDB certification process in August 1997 and June 1998.

SBA terminated its SDB certification program on October 3, 2008 (73 FR 57490) after determining that it was no longer efficient or effective to certify SDBs government-wide. At that time, statutory authority for the SDB price evaluation adjustment had expired for all but three agencies: DOD, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Subsequently, on November 3, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down DOD's SDB program in Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense, 545 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2008), holding that Section 1207 of the 1987 Defense Authorization Act was facially unconstitutional because Congress did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that there was racial discrimination in defense contracting when it reauthorized the program in 2006. Congress declined to reauthorize the government's remaining SDB programs in 2009, and the SDB price evaluation adjustment was removed from the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement in 2014 and 2015, respectively (79 FR 61746 and 80 FR 15912). Currently, there is no SDB set-aside program; there is no statutory authority for the SDB price evaluation adjustment; and SBA does not administer an SDB certification program. As such, the provisions set forth in 13 CFR 124.1002 through 124.1016 are obsolete and SBA is removing them from the CFR. However, SBA is retaining and re-designating the SDB definition currently set forth in 13 CFR 124.1002. Because a firm may self-certify that it qualifies as an SDB for any Federal subcontracting program, SBA believes this provision should remain in the CFR in order to provide guidance to firms seeking to participate in the Federal subcontracting program.

On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, which, among other objectives, is intended to ensure that an agency's regulatory costs are prudently managed and controlled so as to minimize the compliance burden imposed on the public. For every new regulation an agency proposes to implement, unless prohibited by law, this Executive Order requires the agency to (i) identify at least two existing regulations that the agency can cancel; and (ii) use the cost savings from the cancelled regulations to offset the cost of the new regulation.

On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, which further emphasized the goal of the Administration to alleviate the regulatory burdens placed on the public. Under Executive Order 13777, agencies must evaluate their existing regulations to determine which ones should be repealed, replaced, or modified. In doing so, agencies should focus on identifying regulations that, among other things: Eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; or are associated with Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been rescinded or substantially modified. SBA has engaged in this process and has identified the regulations in this rulemaking as appropriate for removal in accordance with Executive Order 13777.

The rule removes § 124.516, which provides that a contract dispute arising between an 8(a) contractor and the procuring activity contracting officer will be decided by the procuring activity, and that appeals may be taken by the 8(a) contractor without SBA involvement. As previously noted, § 124.512 already delegates 8(a) contract administration functions, including contract dispute resolution responsibilities, to procuring agencies. As such, § 124.516 is redundant and is no longer needed.

The rule amends § 124.1001 to eliminate references to SBA's SDB protest and appeal procedures as well as the SDB certification program, as these provisions are now obsolete. SBA is also amending this section to incorporate the substantive provisions of the SDB definition currently set forth in § 124.1002. As noted above, SDB status remains relevant for Federal subcontracting programs.

The rule removes §§ 124.1002 through 124.1016, which set forth SBA's SDB certification program, as well as SBA's SDB protest and appeal procedures. These provisions are unnecessary because SBA no longer administers an SDB certification program, nor does it process SDB protests or appeals.

To provide more information to the public, the titles of these rules to be removed are as follows: (1) § 124.1002 What is a Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)?; (2) § 124.1003 How does a firm become certified as an SDB?; (3) § 124.1004 What is a misrepresentation of SDB status?; (4) § 124.1005 How long does an SDB certification last?; (5) § 124.1006 Can SBA initiate a review of the SDB status of a firm claiming to be an SDB?; (6) § 124.1007 Who may protest the disadvantaged status of a concern?; (7) § 124.1008 When will SBA not decide an SDB protest?; (8) § 124.1009 Who decides disadvantaged status protests?; (9) § 124.1010 What procedures apply to disadvantaged status protests?; (10) § 124.1011 What format, degree of specificity, and basis does SBA require to consider an SDB protest?; (11) § 124.1012 What will SBA do when it receives an SDB protest?; (12) § 124.1013 How does SBA make disadvantaged status determinations in considering an SDB protest?; (13) § 124.1014 Appeals of disadvantaged status determinations.; (14) § 124.1015 What are the requirements for representing SDB status, and what are the penalties for misrepresentation?; and (15) § 124.1016 What must a concern do in order to be identified as an SDB in any Federal procurement database?.

SBA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because SBA views this action as an administrative action that relates solely to expired SBA programs and is non-controversial. This rule will be effective on the date shown in the DATES section unless SBA receives any significant adverse comments on or before the deadline for comments set forth in the DATES section. Significant adverse comments are comments that provide strong justifications for why the rule should not be adopted or for changing the rule. If SBA receives any significant adverse comments, SBA will publish a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before the effective date.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.

This direct final rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action with an annualized net savings of $74,606 and a net present value of $1,065,795, both in 2016 dollars.

This rule removes redundant and obsolete regulations, which will save SDBs time reading irrelevant information. These calculations assume 2 percent of the 125,616 self-certified SDBs read these regulations per year (or approximately 2,500 SDBs) and that they would save 30 minutes each from not reading them. This time is valued at $75.57 per hour—the wage of an attorney according to 2018 Bureau of Labor Statistics data adding 30 percent more for benefits. This produces savings to the SBA community of $94,928 per year.

The cost savings also includes a savings to the government workforce assuming that 2 percent of the 38,000 Federal contracting officers per year (or about 760) will save 30 minutes from not reading this removed information. This time is valued at a rate of $54.21 per hour—assuming the average Federal contracting officer is a GS-12 step 1 (DC locality) adding 30 percent more benefits, for savings of $20,600. This produces total savings per year of $115,528 in current dollars.

In the first year, it is assumed that 5 percent of SDBs (about 6,280) and 5 percent of Federal contracting officers (1,900) would read this Direct Final Rule, which is estimated to take 1 hour per SDB at $75.57 per hour and $54.21 per Federal contracting officer, producing cost in the first year of $577,639 ($474,640 for SDBs and $102,999 for the Federal government). This cost is not expected to continue in subsequent years.

Table 1 lays out the costs and savings of this rule over the first 2 years after publication, with the savings and costs in the second year expected to continue into perpetuity. Table 2 presents the annualized net savings in 2016 dollars.

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

This rule does not have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The SBA has determined that this final rule does not affect any existing collection of information.

When an agency issues a rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), which describes whether the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing a FRFA, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

There are approximately 125,000 self-certified SDBs in SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search and all can be affected by this rule. However, this rule removes regulations that are no longer necessary because they are either redundant or obsolete. The annualized net savings to SDBs is $63,877 in current dollars or less than a dollar per SDB, as detailed in the Executive Order13771 discussion above.

Accordingly, the Administrator of the SBA hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 124 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 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ada Regional Airport, Ada, OK, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 5352; January 30, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2019-1040 to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ada Regional Airport, Ada, OK. 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 E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) at Ada Regional Airport, Ada, OK; updates the name of the airport (previously Ada Municipal Airport) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; extends the extension to the north of the airport to 10.4 miles north of the airport (increased from 10.3 miles); and removes the Ada VOR and associated extension from the airspace legal description.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Ada VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at this airport.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville, KY, and Madisonville Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 11006; February 26, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0140 to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville, KY, and Madisonville Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY. 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 E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by:

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Muhlenberg County Airport, Greenville, KY; removing the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database;

And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Madisonville Regional Airport, Madisonville, KY, by updating the name (previously Madisonville Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Central City VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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 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 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Roben-Hood Airport, Big Rapids, MI, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (85 FR 11005; February 26, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0142 to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Roben-Hood Airport, Big Rapids, MI. 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 E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius (decreased from a 6.7-mile radius) of Roben-Hood Airport, Big Rapids, MI; removing the White Cloud VORTAC and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database.

This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the cancellation and revision of the instrument procedures at this airport.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. 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:

Under Section 408 of the Copyright Act, the U.S. Copyright Office is responsible for registering copyright claims. 1 In so doing, the Office is obligated to obtain a registration deposit that is sufficient to verify the claim and to provide an archival record of what was examined and registered. 2 Deposits of unpublished material must be kept for the full term of copyright protection, 3 and deposits are available for public inspection. 4 The Act, however, authorizes the Office to issue regulations establishing “the nature of the copies . . . to be deposited” in specific classes of works and to “permit, for particular classes, the deposit of identifying material instead of copies or phonorecords.”  5

Pursuant to that authority, the Office has long provided special registration procedures for “secure tests” that require the maintenance of confidentiality of their contents. These include tests “used in connection with admission to educational institutions, high school equivalency, placement in or credit for undergraduate and graduate course work, awarding of scholarships, and professional certification.”  6 Current regulations define a secure test as “a nonmarketed test administered under supervision at specified centers on scheduled dates, all copies of which are accounted for and either destroyed or returned to restricted locked storage following each administration.”  7

On June 12, 2017, the Office issued an interim rule (the “June 2017 Interim Rule”) that memorialized certain aspects of its secure test procedure and adopted new processes to increase the efficiency of its examination of such works. 8 Under this rule, applicants must, among other things, submit an online application, a redacted copy of the entire test, and a brief questionnaire about the test through the electronic registration system. 9 This procedure allows the Office to prescreen an application to determine whether the work appears to be eligible for registration as a secure test. If the test appears to qualify, the Office will schedule an in-person appointment for examination of an unredacted copy of the test. 10

During the in-person meeting, the examiner will review the redacted and unredacted copies in a secure location in the presence of the applicant or his/her representative. 11 If the examiner determines that the relevant legal and formal requirements have been met, he or she will register the claim(s) and add an annotation to the certificate reflecting that the work was examined under the secure test procedure. The registration is effective as of the date that the Office received in proper form the application, questionnaire, filing fee, and the redacted copy that was uploaded to the electronic registration system. 12 The June 2017 Interim Rule thus gives publishers the benefit of establishing as their effective date of registration the date when those materials are submitted to and received by the Office electronically, rather than the later date when the in-person examination takes place.

On November 13, 2017, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders following the June 2017 Interim Rule, the Office issued a second interim rule (the “November 2017 Interim Rule”) to permit registration of a group of test items ( i.e., sets of questions and answers) stored in a database or test bank and used to create secure tests. 13 For these works, the November 2017 Interim Rule adopted most of the same registration procedures that apply to secure tests under the June 2017 Interim Rule.

The Office invited public comment on both the June 2017 and the November 2017 Interim Rules. The Office received a total of thirty-nine responses from a wide variety of testing organizations and other interested parties. 14

While the Office is continuing to evaluate the secure tests regulations as a whole to determine whether changes may be warranted before issuing a final rule, it is issuing an additional interim rule at this time to address a specific disruption currently affecting test publishers' ability to exercise this option. The Office has become aware that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, certain tests that normally are administered with test-takers physically assembled at one or more locations will instead be administered remotely, with test-takers completing the exam online from their homes. Publishers have expressed concern that this change may make the tests ineligible for registration as secure tests, as they will not be administered “at specified centers.”  15 As a result, these publishers may be forced to choose between registering their tests under the normal procedure for literary works (thus forfeiting confidentiality) and either delaying registration until they can administer the test according to the existing rule or foregoing copyright registration altogether. If a publisher chooses to delay registration, it could lose the benefit of an earlier effective date of registration. Although the building that houses the Copyright Office is currently closed to the public and therefore staff are unable to conduct in-person examinations or issue registrations for secure tests, as noted above, an eligible secure test publisher can establish an effective date of registration during this time by electronically submitting an application, questionnaire, filing fee, and redacted copy to the Office. 16

The interim rule amends the regulations to provide an accommodation for tests that would be eligible for secure test registration but for the pandemic. The rule provides that an otherwise-qualifying test shall be considered a secure test if it normally is administered at specified centers but is being administered online during the national emergency, provided the test administrator employs measures to maintain the security and integrity of the test that it reasonably determines to be substantially equivalent to the security and integrity provided by in-person proctors. The rule does not specify particular measures that are required to meet this standard, as the Office believes that publishers generally should have flexibility to tailor such processes to their specific needs. But as examples, the Office expects that sufficient measures typically would include some combination of video monitoring and/or recording, the disabling of certain functions on test-takers' computers ( e.g., copying and pasting), technological measures to prevent access to external websites and other prohibited materials, and identity verification of the individual taking the test. It also should be noted that the interim rule does not alter the requirement that a secure test be administered “under supervision,” which means that “test proctors or the equivalent supervise the administration of the test.”  17

The rule also makes a clarifying change to the portion of the definition concerning the storage of secure tests. The current language requires all copies of a secure test to be “either destroyed or returned to restricted locked storage following each administration.”  18 To make clear that this provision does not preclude the retention of digital copies, the interim rule provides that copies also may be returned to “secure electronic storage.”

As the wording of the interim rule makes clear, the modification of the definition of secure tests is temporary, lasting only until the COVID-19 emergency ends. The Office is providing this flexibility to ensure that test administrators can continue to offer socially valuable secure tests during the national emergency. This accommodation should not be seen as determinative of the final rule in this proceeding, which will be established on the basis of the overall rulemaking record. The Office recognizes, however, that the “specified centers” limitation was a concern for many test publishers even before the emergency, with several commenters in this proceeding urging the Office to amend that language to facilitate a broader range of testing models. The Office therefore will monitor the operation of the interim rule to help it evaluate whether and under what conditions remote testing should be permitted under the secure tests regulations once the emergency period ends.

In light of the ongoing national emergency, the Copyright Office finds good cause to publish these amendments as an interim rule effective immediately, and without first publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, “because of the demonstrable urgency of the conditions they are designed to correct.”  19

As noted, the Office is currently unable to conduct in-person examination of secure test applications. The Office is exploring possible options to provide such examinations via secure videoconference. The Office invites comments regarding the technological requirements that would be needed for test publishers to participate in such a process. In particular, the Office is interested in whether examination using the WebEx platform would be acceptable to publishers, as that program is currently supported by the Library of Congress. The Office requests that comments be limited to these topics.

The Office has determined that informal communication with interested parties might be beneficial in this rulemaking, including to discuss how the change implemented by the interim rule has operated in practice. The Office therefore intends to issue guidelines according to which parties may request ex parte meetings with the Office in this proceeding. Consistent with its practice in other rulemakings, the Office will establish requirements to ensure transparency, including that participating parties submit a list of attendees and a written summary of any oral communications, which will be posted on the Office's website. The ex parte guidelines will made be available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/securetests when the Office initiates the availability of such communications. No ex parte meetings in this proceeding will be scheduled before that time.

Seamless Acceptance leverages electronic documentation (eDoc) and the Intelligent Mail® barcodes (IMbs) on all containers, handling units, and mailpieces required under full-service. Mailpiece scans collected from mail processing equipment (MPE) and samples from hand-held scanning devices are reconciled to the mailer eDoc to confirm proper mail preparation for discounts claimed and confirm correct postage payment. This capability avoids the need for verification of mail at acceptance.

The Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 8, 2020 (85 FR 856-859), to require mailers with authorized Detached Mail Units (DMU) and mailers that enter full-service mailings at a Business Mail Entry Unit (BMEU) to participate in Seamless Parallel by March 1, 2020. In addition, the Postal Service provided advance notice of its intent to require DMU mailers to enroll in the Seamless Acceptance Program by February 1, 2021. Moreover, the Postal Service provided advance notices of its intent to verify all full-service mailings entered at a BMEU using automated sampling and verification processes, beginning July 1, 2021.

The Postal Service received many insightful comments and questions from the mailing community in response to the proposed rule of January 8, 2020. In response to those comments, the Postal Service incorporates the following changes into this final rule, and notes that aside from these changes, Seamless Acceptance plans have not changed in substance from the proposed rule of January 8, 2020:

• Mailers with authorized DMUs and mailers entering full-service mailings at BMEUs must enroll in Seamless Parallel by June 1, 2020 (instead of March 1, 2020).

In addition, the Postal Service intends to propose the following regulatory changes in a future rulemaking:

• Mailers with authorized DMUs, as a condition of their DMU authorization, must participate in Seamless Acceptance by May 1, 2021;

• Full-Service mailings entered at BMEUs will begin to be verified using only automated sampling and verification processes on July 1, 2021.

The Postal Service received seven formal responses on the Seamless changes for Detached Mail Unit (DMU) and Full-Service Mailings proposal. Six formal responses included comments on more than one issue.

Five comments encouraged the USPS® to provide an incentive for mailers to defray costs incurred from migrating to Seamless Acceptance. Respondents claim that there is a significant cost impact to business (above and beyond full-service IMb participation) to participate in Seamless Acceptance, and that the USPS should provide an incentive to offset the investment and ongoing costs incurred by mailers.

USPS will continue to work collaboratively with industry stakeholders to minimize any cost impact to mailers that adopt Seamless Acceptance. The Postal Service notes that new rates, including incentives, must be authorized by the Governors of the Postal Service and reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Four comments stated that varying piece weights may cause a mailer to be susceptible to an assessment. Respondents claim this is especially true for flat-size pieces susceptible to environmental impacts ( e.g., humidity).

USPS has initiated the creation of a Task Team (MTAC TT-30) to work collaboratively with industry stakeholders. USPS will consider recommendations from MTAC TT-30.

Four comments encourage USPS to provide mailers with images of undocumented pieces and other mailer scorecard errors so they can identify the specific mailer or mailing to investigate and resolve mail quality issues.

USPS will continue to explore the feasibility of this proposal.

Three comments had concerns that the intended February 1, 2021 date was too close to implementation of the January 2021 price change. Price changes require significant resources and commenters are concerned that their resources will be limited and will not be ready by February 1, 2021.

As previously indicated, the USPS recognizes the industry concern with the proposed dates and has made the following changes:

• Seamless Parallel enrollment must be completed by June 1, 2020.

• Intended date to require DMU sites to Seamless changed to May 1, 2021.

• Verification of BMEU full-service mailings intended to begin on July 1, 2021.

Three comments voice concerns on the general timeline in terms of USPS ability to provide the necessary education, training, and customer service needed for mailers to adopt Seamless Acceptance.

USPS has provided extensive internal and external training on the Streamlined Mail Entry Programs. The Mail Entry staff will be able to effectively manage the influx of new Seamless mailers. In addition, USPS has created a centralized Mailing and Shipping Solutions Center (MSSC) with specially trained personnel to answer mailer questions and provide information. USPS continues to emphasize ongoing internal training to ensure USPS staff have the most up-to-date training and tools necessary to assist mailers with any concerns or issues that may arise.

One comment stated that the customer was using legacy verifications as their quality control to avoid un-foreseen assessments.

Seamless Acceptance and the automated sampling and verification processes provide mailers with the opportunity to view their mail quality metrics throughout the month utilizing the Mailer Scorecard. The Mailer Scorecard is updated each night with current Mail Quality Metric reporting, enabling mailers to diagnose errors and implement changes prior to being assessed. The Scorecard provides a daily update informing the customer of any potential assessments that could be levied if the mail quality metric continues to exceed the posted error threshold.

One comment expressed a concern of a potential assessment after a mailing has been accepted and entered into the mailstream, without a chance to avoid the assessment by fixing the mailing.

The Postal Service works collaboratively with mailers to provide advice and guidance throughout the month on Mailer Scorecard issues. Mailers start in the Seamless Parallel process to gauge how they would have performed under Seamless verifications; no assessments are imposed during Seamless Parallel. Seamless Parallel provides mailers opportunities to gather information and correct issues prior to moving to Seamless Acceptance. During this Seamless Parallel process USPS works with mailers to mitigate Mailer Scorecard errors and prepare mailers to adopt Seamless Acceptance.

Several other comments mentioned the Seamless Acceptance impact on Exceptional Dispatch for Periodicals mailings, mailings accepted at local associated offices (AO), and when updated guides would be posted.

There is no impact to Exceptional Dispatch Periodicals mailings. Customers would continue to drop at the sites that are currently established drop locations as part of their Exceptional Dispatch. Mailings at smaller AOs will continue as they currently do today. The updated Guide to the Mailer Scorecard and Publication 685, Publication for Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters and Flats will be posted on PostalPro in April 2020.

Further comments inquired into the impact Seamless Acceptance will have on the other non-acceptance duties performed at a DMUs like Certificates of Mailing, and questioned whether DMUs may be closed.

Due to the automated verification processes, DMU sites enrolled in Seamless Acceptance will experience a reduced presence of USPS personnel onsite. Other duties such as Certificates of Mailings and non-acceptance duties will be completed when the clerk is on site for Seamless samplings. It is not the intent of the Postal Service to close DMUs but rather to require adoption of Seamless Acceptance by May 1, 2021, as a condition of DMU authorization. When mailers submit the PS Form 3834, Detached Mail Unit Authorization Application, they agree to prepare mailings in accordance with applicable standards in the DMM. Any DMU mailer that anticipates they will be unable to comply with Seamless Acceptance requirements by May 1, 2021 will be required to request an extension by February 1, 2021.

Additional comments related to the available resources for industry to train and educate their staff.

There are tremendous amounts of resources currently available to customers including web based searches on PostalPro and Postal Explorer. Fact sheets, process guides, and publications are available on those sites. Mailers may also reach out to the Mailing and Shipping Solutions Center (MSSC), PostalOne! or Facility Access & Shipment Tracking (FAST) helpdesks for information.

Commenters wondered how auto finalization affects the balance of the permit when some clients of mail preparers pay just prior to mailing. Client's permits sometimes have insufficient funds on deposit. Is there a way for USPS to alert mail preparers when one of the client permits has insufficient funds?

Auto finalization puts control in the mailers' hands. The process has not changed and sufficient funds must be in the account at the time of mailing. Under current standards specified in DMM § 705.22.3, mailings accepted under Seamless auto finalize even if one of the permits in the mailing does not have sufficient funds in combined mailings. This allows mailings to be accepted without delay.

Two different comments were submitted seeking clarity on eInduction requirements for BMEU-entered mailings and potential impact on container requirements.

No, BMEU mailers will not be required to participate in eInduction unless they elect to enroll in Seamless Acceptance. eInduction is a requirement of Seamless Acceptance for all drop shipment mailings. When the hardcopy PS 8125, Plant-Verified Drop Shipment (PVDS) would have been used. This allows mailers to enter mailings without using the hardcopy form. Mailers will continue to follow the current placarding under Publication 685, Publication for Streamlined Mail Acceptance for Letters and Flats available on PostalPro.

One comment stated that USPS is causing undocumented mail on the mailer's scorecard by changing the IMb on the mailpiece to start with “93”.

USPS does update mailpieces that go through PARS operations. These pieces will have their IMb “Type” updated to “93” and the Address (Delivery Point) information is changed to the new address. The changed IMb no longer matches the original IMb contained in eDoc. In the past, this resulted in the piece being erroneously reported as undocumented. However, to keep these pieces from being reporting erroneously as undocumented in mailer scorecards, USPS implemented system logic to recognize that the “93” IMb type indicated a changed IMb. Prior to reporting a piece as undocumented, USPS drops the “93” and New Address portion of the IMb and attempts to match the remainder of the original IMb—STID, MID, Serial Number—combination to an eDoc. Only if a match is not found with the remaining STID, MID, Serial Number combination would the piece be reported as undocumented.

One comment wanted to know what would happen if they did not adopt Seamless Acceptance by the July 1, 2021 deadline.

USPS clarifies that there is no July 1, 2021 “deadline” for mailers. Rather, that is the date on which the Postal Service intends to begin verifying all Full-Service mailings entered at BMEUs using automated verification processes. BMEU mailers would not be required to prepare or enter their mail differently. All other mailings will continue to be verified using manual verification methods.

One comment mentions that there used to be a roadmap and wanted to know if USPS has updated it and where it can be found.

We have an updated Roadmap available, by searching “CIO Roadmap” on PostalPro at: https://postalpro.usps.com/usps-roadmap#!/category/mail-acceptance-payment.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

I. Introduction II. Background III. Commission Process IV. Authorization V. Modifications VI. Ordering Paragraphs I. Introduction

Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642(d) and 39 CFR 3040.103, the Commission establishes Docket No. RM2020-8 and provides a Notice of Update to Product Lists. In the instant Notice, the Commission explains the establishment of a new rulemaking docket, describes the Commission's process and authorization as it relates to updates to product lists, and provides a Notice of Update to Product Lists by listing all modifications to both the market dominant and competitive product lists between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2020.

The Commission has previously posted its Notices of Update to Product Lists as part of Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36. 1 In each notice, the Commission states that the process for the periodic publication of product list updates was established in Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36. 2 However, as part of Docket No. RM2016-8, the Commission codified its process for the publication of product list updates in the Federal Register in 39 CFR 3040.103—Notice of Product List Change. 3 Among other things, 39 CFR 3040.103 describes the required content of any Notice of Update to Product Lists and its corresponding Federal Register document. 39 CFR 3040.103(d). As such, the Commission finds it appropriate to establish a new docket where Notices of Update to Product Lists will be posted pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.103 and the publication process described therein. The Commission also notes that a rulemaking docket, instead of a Mail Classification (MC), Competitive Product (CP) combination docket, is most appropriate for two reasons. First, a Notice of Update to Product Lists can include market dominant product list changes and not solely competitive product list changes. Second, any Notice of Update to Product Lists is published in the Federal Register as a direct final rulemaking that amends the Code of Federal Regulations. 4 For all Notices of Update to Product Lists, the Commission will consider comments on issues related to each Notice. If the Commission does not receive a significant adverse comment, the product list updates in each Notice will go into effect 30 days after the date of publication of the Notice in the Federal Register without further action.

Pursuant to 39 CFR part 3040, the Commission maintains a Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) that includes rates, fees, and product descriptions for each market dominant and competitive product, as well as product lists that categorize Postal Service products as either market dominant or competitive. See generally 39 CFR part 3040. The product lists are published in the Code of Federal Regulations as 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3040—Market Dominant Product List and Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3040—Competitive Product List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(2). See 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(2). Both the MCS and its product lists are updated by the Commission on its website on a quarterly basis. 5 In addition, these quarterly updates to the product lists are also published in the Federal Register pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.103. See 39 CFR 3040.103.

Pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.103(d)(1), this Notice of Update to Product Lists identifies any modifications made to the market dominant or competitive product list, including product additions, removals, and transfers. 6 Pursuant to 39 CFR 3040.103(d)(2), the modifications identified in this document result from the Commission's most recent MCS update posted on the Commission's website on April 1, 2020, and supersede all previous product lists. 7

The following list of products are being removed from 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3040—Market Dominant Product List:

The following list of products are being added to 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3040—Competitive Product List:

The following list of products are being removed from 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3040—Competitive Product List:

The above-referenced changes to the market dominant product list and the competitive product list are incorporated into 39 CFR Appendix A and B to Subpart A of Part 3040—Competitive Product List.

It is ordered:

1. Part 3040 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth below the signature of this Notice, effective 30 days after the date of publication of the Notice in the Federal Register without further action, unless adverse comments are received.

2. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of the Notice in the Federal Register .

3. Interested persons may submit adverse comments no later than 30 days from the date of the publication of this Notice in the Federal Register .

4. If adverse comments are received, the Secretary will publish a timely withdrawal of the Notice in the Federal Register .

On April 17, 2020, the Coast Guard published a final rule titled “2013 Liquid Chemical Categorization Updates” (85 FR 21660) that becomes effective May 18, 2020. A routine post-publication review by the Coast Guard revealed minor typographical errors, such as text that was incorrectly italicized or run together. The errors included one incorrect Group Number and one incorrect Related CHRIS Code in the tables. The Group Number does not correspond to any Group, and the Related CHRIS Code repeats the listed CHRIS Code instead of displaying a related code. These typographical errors are not substantive, and correcting them aligns the final text with the stated purpose of the rulemaking. Therefore, no additional notice and opportunity for public comment is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). For the same reasons, and to forestall any confusion caused by incorrect text, the Coast Guard finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make the corrected text effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, document FCC 20-7, adopted on January 30, 2020, released on January 31, 2020, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Commission previously sought comment on the issue in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( 2019 VRS Program Management FNPRM ), published at 84 FR 26379, June 6, 2019. The full text of document FCC 20-7 will be available for public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 20-7 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Document FCC 20-7 contains modified information collection requirements, which are not effective until approval is obtained from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission invites the general public to comment on the information collection requirements as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register announcing approval of the information collection requirements. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” 2019 VRS Program Management FNPRM.

1. The Commission authorizes TRS Fund compensation of VRS providers for calls handled by CAs from home workstations, converting the existing pilot at-home call-handling program to a permanent one. VRS enables people with hearing or speech disabilities who use American Sign Language (ASL) to employ video equipment to communicate with voice telephone users. A video link allows a CA and the VRS user on the video side of the call to view and sign with each other, and the CA is also connected to a user on the voice side of the call via telephone. The CA interprets and relays the conversation back and forth between the two parties.

2. Allowing VRS CAs to work at home under appropriate regulation can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of VRS. Adding this flexibility enables VRS providers to attract and retain qualified CAs for whom working at the companies' call centers is not a practical option, and working at home can reduce CA stress and improve productivity and performance. Further, at-home call handling can improve network reliability and redundancy, and there is potential for cost savings. By largely retaining the safeguards established in the 2017 VRS Improvements Order, published at 82 FR 17754, April 13, 2017, the Commission can permit at-home VRS call handling without increasing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse or endangering the confidentiality, reliability, and quality of VRS. In adopting these safeguards as minimum TRS standards, the Commission also simplifies the organization and wording of the rules to provide a clearer and more concise statement of provider obligations.

3. Maximum percentage of at-home minutes. The Commission raises the percentage cap on a provider's at-home call-handling to 50% of the provider's monthly VRS minutes, continuing the pilot-program approach whereby at-home workstations for VRS CAs complement rather than replace the functions performed at call centers.

4. Personnel safeguards. The Commission adopts a few substantive changes to these safeguards. First, rather than requiring CAs working from home to have three years of VRS call center experience, the Commission requires three years of full-time or equivalent part-time experience in professional ASL interpreting, whether in a community, business, VRS, or other context.

5. Second, the Commission retains the pilot program requirement for at-home CAs to receive training on compliance with at-home safeguards and the provider's specific protocols for handling calls at home. However, because the Commission's rules already require a detailed plan describing how the VRS provider will ensure compliance, the Commission deletes as redundant the specific requirement that VRS providers establish at-home protocols.

6. Third, while continuing to require that a CA be removed from at-home call handling if the CA violates the at-home safeguards or other Commission rules, the Commission deletes the specific requirements that VRS providers establish and provide to CAs in writing the specific grounds and process for terminating a CA's permission to work at home and to have at-home CAs sign written certifications as to their understanding of and commitment to comply with the Commission's rules. VRS providers are required to effectively train and supervise at-home CAs and are responsible for their CAs' compliance with the minimum TRS standards.

7. Technical and environmental safeguards. The Commission adopts the pilot program's technical and environmental safeguards without substantial changes. VRS providers must ensure that home workstations enable the provision of confidential and uninterrupted service to the same extent as the provider's call centers, and that calls handled by at-home CAs are seamlessly integrated into the provider's call-routing, distribution, tracking, and support systems. The VRS provider must ensure that each home workstation resides in a separate, secure location within the home, with restricted access; allows the CA to use all call-handling technology to the same extent as call-center CAs; is capable of supporting VRS in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards to the same degree as at call centers; is equipped with effective means to prevent eavesdropping and outside interruptions; and connects to the provider's network over a secure connection to ensure caller privacy. These performance-based standards allow providers flexibility in deciding how to achieve technical and environmental parity with call-center workstations, enabling the specific implementations to adapt and improve as technology changes.

8. The Commission provides the following clarifications to help VRS providers understand their compliance options. It is the VRS provider's responsibility to ensure that its CAs comply with the security-related safeguards for home workstations, which are intended to protect the confidentiality of user information and call content in accordance with longstanding TRS rules. Measures to ensure that home workstations have security equivalent to that of a call center may include, for example, password protection for equipment, a lock on the door to the CA's workspace, a virtual private network connection to the VRS provider's network, VRS call encryption, soundproofing material, and sound-dampening installations, such as a white noise machine. Although the VRS provider is responsible for ensuring secure communications between the home workstation and the provider's network, the rules do not require subscription to a separate broadband internet access line dedicated solely to that purpose.

9. Similarly, a VRS provider must ensure the overall redundancy of its communications system, which must be functionally equivalent to the redundancy achieved by telephone networks, and the inclusion of at-home interpreting may be part of a provider's plan. The Commission's rules do not require VRS providers to duplicate each element of redundancy, such as back-up power and business-grade internet access service, at each home workstation.

10. The Commission also clarifies that “home workstation” includes any work site that is used by a single CA or by multiple CAs working different shifts. If a home (other than a shared residence) or other work site is used simultaneously by more than one CA, that location will be deemed a VRS call center subject to the applicable Commission rules. This clarification ensures that the Commission is aware of the location and responsible supervisor for each such work site housing multiple CAs. However, if two or more CAs share a residence, it will not be deemed a “call center” even if they work there simultaneously.

11. Emergency call handling. The Commission retains the requirement that home workstations support the handling of emergency calls. The Commission does not allow the transfer of an emergency 911 call from an at-home CA to a call center CA, which would introduce delay. However, the Commission clarifies that, if the CAs available to immediately answer a 911 call include both call-center and at-home CAs, a VRS provider's call-routing algorithm may give preference to having the call answered at a call center, provided that such routing is consistent with the priority treatment required by the Commission's rules and does not delay answering the 911 call. The Commission will continue to assess the performance of at-home CAs in emergencies and will revisit this issue if the evidence warrants.

12. Authorization to participate. The Commission does not require currently certified VRS providers—each of whom was previously approved to participate in the pilot program—to seek further authorization for at-home call handling. A new applicant for VRS certification desiring to use at-home call handling must request such authorization as part of its application. As under the pilot program, such authorization requests must include a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with the at-home call-handling safeguards and the monitoring and oversight requirements. All VRS providers authorized for at-home call handling, including currently authorized providers, must inform the Commission in their annual VRS compliance reports of any substantive changes to their previously filed compliance plans. Because the at-home call-handling safeguards and requirements are part of the Commission's mandatory minimum standards, noncompliance with such standards, or failure to adhere to a filed at-home compliance plan, may be considered in determining whether to grant or deny renewal of, or whether to suspend or revoke, a certification to provide VRS. Because it is redundant with existing rules relating generally to TRS providers, the Commission deletes the separate provision stating that VRS providers may also be subject to withholding, forfeitures, and penalties for noncompliant minutes handled by home workstations.

13. Monitoring, oversight, auditing, and inspection requirements. The Commission adopts without substantive change the pilot program's monitoring, oversight, auditing, and inspection requirements. These rules require VRS providers to inspect and approve each home workstation before it is used; equip each home workstation with monitoring technology sufficient to ensure that CA performance is supervised to the same extent as CAs in a call center; regularly analyze any data collected to address possible waste, fraud, and abuse; conduct random, unannounced inspections of at least 5% of home workstations per year; keep all records pertaining to home workstations for a minimum of five years; and allow review, audit, and inspection of home workstations and workstation records by the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator. The Commission clarifies that the rule requiring a VRS provider to conduct initial and periodic inspections of each home workstation does not specify how the inspections are conducted, provided that such inspections are consistent with the provider's at-home compliance plan and are effective in determining whether the CA's home workstation and workspace are in compliance with the at-home safeguards.

14. The Commission retains the pilot program's five-year retention period for at-home call-handling data, which will provide greater assurance that relevant information is available and can be reviewed, if necessary, in deciding whether renewal of a VRS provider's certification is warranted. This is consistent with the retention periods for other VRS provider records, such as the data supporting cost reports and claims for payment from the TRS Fund.

15. Call detail reports and call center information. The Commission adopts without substantive change the pilot program rules requiring monthly requests for compensation to include, for each at-home CA, a home workstation identification number (ID), street address, and CA ID; and the call center ID, location, and supervisor name for the call center supervising that CA. Collecting such data ensures that the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission are able to review, audit, and, if necessary, investigate the handling of calls at home workstations to the same extent as at call centers.

16. Annual reports. In lieu of the semi-annual report required under the pilot program, the Commission requires VRS providers to include at-home call-handling data in their annual VRS compliance reports. These reports must include the same information that has proved useful in evaluating call-handling performance under the pilot program: The total number of CAs who have worked at home during the reporting period; the total number of 911 calls handled during the reporting period; and the total number of complaints, if any, submitted to the provider regarding its at-home call-handling program or calls handled by at-home CAs.

17. The Commission deletes the specific pilot-program requirements for the submission of detailed information about the at-home CA screening process, at-home CA training materials and call-handling protocols, CA surveys and self-evaluations, CAs terminated from the program, inspections of home workstations, oversight of CAs working at home, tracking software reports, and costs of at-home call handling. In lieu of these voluminous reports, the Commission requires VRS providers to describe in their annual reports any substantive changes in the information previously submitted in the provider's at-home compliance plan.

18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA) the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 2019 VRS Program Management FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA.

19. Document FCC 20-7 makes permanent, with some modifications, a pilot program that permits CAs to handle VRS calls at home, subject to safeguards designed to maintain service quality, protect call confidentiality, and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Adopting permanent rules for at-home call handling will expand the available pool of qualified sign-language interpreters who can work as VRS CAs and enable VRS providers to improve service quality and reliability.

20. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.

21. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

22. The rules adopted in document FCC 20-7 will affect obligations of VRS providers. These services can be included within the broad economic category of All Other Telecommunications.

23. In allowing VRS CAs to handle VRS calls at-home on a permanent basis, the Commission retains some of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements previously applicable to VRS providers under the pilot program, while eliminating others.

24. A VRS provider or applicant for VRS certification may request authorization to provide at-home VRS call handling in conjunction with an application for certification to provide VRS or for renewal of such certification, or at any other time. As under the existing pilot program rules, the application must include a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with the at-home call handling safeguards and monitoring and oversight requirements.

25. To work at home, a CA must: Be a qualified interpreter with at least three years of professional interpreting experience, have the experience, skills, and knowledge necessary to effectively interpret VRS calls without in-person supervision, have learned the provider's protocols for at-home call handling, and understand and follow the TRS mandatory minimum standards. A VRS provider must provide on-the-job support equivalent to that provided to CAs working from call centers, including team interpreting and readily available supervisors to resolve problems that may arise during a relay call.

26. Requirements for at-home CA workstations remain substantially the same as under the pilot program. They must be placed in a separate location within the home, with restricted access and effective means to minimize the impact of outside noise and prevent eavesdropping; configured to enable the CA to use all call-handling technology to the same extent as other CAs; capable of supporting VRS in compliance with the Commission's mandatory minimum standards; and connected to the provider's network over a secure connection to ensure caller privacy.

27. As under the pilot program, VRS providers must appropriately monitor and oversee the provision of at-home call handling. They must approve each at-home CA workstation and its home environment before activation; equip workstations with monitoring technology sufficient to ensure that off-site supervision approximates the level of supervision at the provider's call center; conduct random, unannounced inspections of at least 5% of all at-home workstations annually; and keep all records pertaining to at-home workstations for a minimum of five years.

28. As under the pilot program, for calls handled through at-home workstations, VRS providers must submit to the TRS Fund administrator in their monthly requests for compensation, in addition to the data otherwise required to receive payment for handling calls: A unique workstation ID, street address, and CA ID for each CA working at home; and the location and call center IDs of call centers providing supervision for at-home workstations, and the names of persons at such call centers responsible for oversight of these workstations.

29. VRS providers that provide at-home call handling must submit some but not all of the information previously required in implementation reports. The amended rule requires the submission of the total number of CAs handling VRS calls from home workstations over the preceding year; the number of 911 calls handled by the provider's home workstations; the total number of complaints, if any, submitted to the provider regarding its at-home call handling program or calls handled by at-home CAs; and a description of any substantive changes in the VRS provider's currently effective at-home call-handling compliance plan. Instead of being submitted every six months, as under the pilot program, these reports must only be filed annually, as part of the annual filings already required to demonstrate VRS providers' overall compliance with the Commission's VRS rules.

30. The rule amendments adopted by the Commission do not increase VRS providers' compliance burden compared with the existing rules applicable under the pilot at-home call-handling program. Providing at-home call handling remains optional for any small entities certified to provide VRS. Maintaining most of the existing safeguards as conditions for permitting VRS providers to let CAs work at home will help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; assure that mandatory minimum standards are met; and ensure the confidentiality, reliability, and quality of VRS. The requirements apply equally to all VRS providers. To the extent there are differences in operating costs resulting from economies of scale, those costs are reflected in the different rate structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.

31. To eliminate counterproductive effects and unnecessary compliance burdens, the Commission relaxes or eliminates some of the regulations applicable to VRS providers that choose to allow CAs to work at home. Instead of requiring at-home CAs to have a minimum of three years of VRS call center experience, as under the pilot program, the Commission only requires three years of full-time professional sign language interpreting, whether in community interpreting or VRS call handling. This modification will allow VRS providers to hire interpreters who have not previously been able to work in VRS. The Commission also eliminates the specific requirements for VRS providers to adopt written dismissal policies for at-home CAs and require such CAs to sign written compliance certifications, as VRS providers have sufficient incentives to ensure at-home CAs comply with the Commission's rules without adopting paperwork rules on these matters. Lastly, the Commission increases the limit on the percentage of minutes that may be handled by at-home CAs from 30% to 50%, increasing the flexibility of VRS providers, including small businesses, in hiring CAs.

32. The Commission authorizes each currently certified VRS provider to continue providing at-home call handling under the new rules, without additional filings. Only new applicants for VRS certification are required to include a request for authorization in their applications, if they wish to employ at-home CAs. Incorporating at-home call handling requirements into the recertification requirement streamlines the application process and aligns with existing, more general filing requirements. Similarly, the Commission eases the burden imposed by required reports on at-home call-handling compliance by reducing their frequency, eliminating most of the required information, including the detailed cost and workstation-monitoring data required under the pilot program, and consolidating the at-home call-handling compliance report with the more comprehensive annual filing already required to demonstrate a VRS provider's overall compliance with Commission's VRS rules.

33. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 225, document FCC 20-7 is adopted, and part 64 of title 47 is amended.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 part 64 as follows:

On March 16, 1934, Congress passed, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed, the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. Popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act, it required all waterfowl hunters 16 years or older to buy a Stamp annually. The revenue generated from the sale of the Stamp is used to buy or lease waterfowl habitat.

Since its enactment, the Federal Duck Stamp Program has become internationally known as one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Today, some 1.5 million Stamps are sold each year primarily to sportswomen and men prior to hunting related activities. As of 2019, Federal Duck Stamps have generated more than $1.1 billion for the preservation of over 6 million acres of waterfowl habitat in the United States. Numerous other birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians have similarly prospered because of habitat conservation made possible by the program. Many of the Nation's endangered and threatened species find food or shelter on refuges preserved by Duck Stamp funds. Moreover, protected wetlands help dissipate storm water runoff, purify water supplies, store flood water, and nourish fish hatchlings important for sport and commercial fishermen.

The first Federal Duck Stamp was designed by Jay N. “Ding” Darling, a nationally known political cartoonist for the Des Moines Register and a noted hunter and wildlife conservationist. In subsequent years, noted wildlife artists were asked to submit designs. The first Federal Duck Stamp Contest was opened in 1949 to any U.S. artist who wished to enter. Regulations governing the Contest appear in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 91.

To select each year's design, a panel of noted art, waterfowl, and philatelic authorities is appointed by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). Winners receive no compensation for their work except for a pane of their stamps signed by the Secretary. However, artists maintain the copyright to their artwork and may sell prints of their designs, which are sought by hunters, conservationists, and art collectors.

An annual rules brochure is published to announce the Contest and provide artists with official entry forms, a list of five or fewer eligible species that may be depicted, and instructions for submitting entries. Any changes to the Contest regulations must be completed via the formal rulemaking process.

On January 29, 2020, we published a proposed rule (85 FR 5182) to revise the Duck Stamp Contest regulations. We proposed to specify a permanent “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” theme, which would require all qualified Contest entries to include waterfowl hunting-related accessories and/or themes. By requiring this theme, we would recognize the role of hunters, the primary purchasers of Duck Stamps, in raising over $1.1 billion for waterfowl habitat conservation through the sale of Duck Stamps. The January 29, 2020, proposed rule opened a 45-day public comment period, ending March 16, 2020, and invited comments on the proposed changes from all interested individuals and organizations.

We received 708 unique comments on the January 29, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 5182), which are grouped under appropriate subject-matter headings and addressed below.

(1) Comment: Of the commenters indicating that they were in favor of the permanent theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” and subsequent mandatory inclusion of a waterfowl hunting scene or accessory as part of the entry design, several expressed their opinions that it was important and long overdue to recognize hunters' contributions to conservation and the waterfowl hunting heritage.

Of the commenters who expressed that they opposed the proposed change for the Contest regulations, several commenters stated their belief that the Federal Duck Stamp already celebrates hunting, as the inclusion of hunting-related accessories, hunters, and hunting scenes are already permitted as an optional part of the Stamp design. Several believed that making such inclusion mandatory was divisive and would jeopardize the Stamp's appeal to non-hunters who are interested in purchasing the Stamp as a way of supporting conservation. Many of those against the change for the Contest did not want the inclusion of hunting-related items to detract from the primary waterfowl and habitat conservation focus of the Stamp. A few commenters expressed the opinion that they were not supportive of a permanent change but proposed a schedule for the “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” theme on a rotating and known cycle.

Service Response: The Service is instituting a permanent theme of “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” that will necessitate the mandatory inclusion of hunting-related accessories in every entry beginning with the 2020 Contest. This change will recognize the contributions of hunters and hunting to waterfowl and wetland conservation.

(2) Comment: Several commenters felt that requirements for a theme be implemented only with careful consideration of all aspects of the Stamp program, artists, and purchasers of the Stamp. Suggestions were made that proposed themes should have an intrinsic biological or conservation message or celebrate other user and Stamp purchaser groups. Several commenters believed that the inclusion of an annual theme would make a poor-quality stamp and would not significantly improve the resulting design. Several also suggested that the inclusion of objects (such as humans or dogs) to satisfy the requirement of addressing the theme would detract from the natural beauty of the depicted waterfowl. Several commented that only specific species would be eligible with a mandatory theme, leading the Stamps and artist prints to become repetitive and boring. Commenters also noted that there are relatively few accessories to any theme that could be included in a composition due to the size, scale, and other restrictions of the artwork.

Several commenters suggested, rather than using the Stamp itself to illustrate the theme, that the theme be celebrated on the carrier and other products produced to market the Stamp.

Service Response: The theme of “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” will be permanent beginning with the 2020 Contest, which will require the inclusion of a waterfowl hunting-related accessory or theme in the design of the entry.

Regarding the inclusion of objects in the Stamps, several previous Stamps contained objects such as decoys, dogs, and hunters that have made memorable Stamps. The judges' mandate will be that they choose the design that will best make an attractive Federal Duck Stamp that illustrates the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage.”

(3) Comment: Most commenters applauded the huge financial commitment hunters annually put toward wildlife conservation.

One commenter noted that celebrating hunters for legally doing what they are required to do (purchase a Stamp) was an interesting concept. The commenter, who self-identified as a hunter, raised the question of how many hunters would purchase the Duck Stamp if it was not mandatory for them to do so.

Many commenters who purchased Stamps for reasons other than waterfowl hunting did not feel that their contributions and purchases of Duck Stamps were being acknowledged or appreciated. Others expressed the desire that, although hunters in the past may have been financially responsible for raising conservation dollars, they wanted non-hunters to be encouraged to purchase Stamps and would find it harder to convince them if there was a hunting theme.

Service Response: The recognition of waterfowl hunters' contributions to wildlife and habitat conservation will further the Department of the Interior's priorities of increased sportsperson access on public lands. By focusing on the long heritage of waterfowl hunting on the Federal Duck Stamp, we acknowledge the contributions of waterfowl hunters as conservationists.

Further, upon its conception in 1934, the proper name of the Federal Duck Stamp was the “Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp.” The name became “Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp” with the 1977-78 Stamp to reflect the broader conservation aspects and primary goal of the Stamp. While the theme and inclusion of a hunting-related accessory and/or scene will be mandatory for the Federal Duck Stamp design, the central focal point and dominant aspect of each entry will still be the live portrayal of at least one of that year's five eligible waterfowl species.

(4) Comment: Commenters questioned whether the proposed change would increase interest in the Duck Stamp Program and boost the annual sale of Stamps. Several believed that the hunting theme would alienate non-consumptive buyers, such as stamp collectors, bird watchers, or those expressing support for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Although these discretionary purchasers obtain the Stamp for reasons other than “because it is mandatory,” their contribution also goes to the conservation of habitat.

Many commenters mentioned the lack of a solid marketing strategy for Duck Stamps, the lack of baseline data on who purchases the Stamp, and the lack of funding and personnel in the Duck Stamp Office.

Service Response: The Service made no change to the final rule in response to these comments. The Federal Duck Stamp has been mandatory to hunt waterfowl since 1934 and has been incredibly successful in conserving habitat for wildlife. By using the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage,” we are recognizing the conservation contributions made by millions of waterfowl hunters over this period. The inclusion of this theme provides the opportunity to present information on the history and tradition of waterfowl hunting in the United States.

We appreciate those who voluntarily help fund wildlife habitat conservation through their purchase of Federal Duck Stamps and will continue to encourage non-consumptive wildlife resource users, stamp collectors, and other conservationists to purchase Federal Duck Stamps to support migratory bird habitat conservation. Many individuals, friends groups and birding groups have made a concerted effort over the past several years to encourage purchase of the Stamp by bird watchers, photographers, and other interested in habitat conservation. We hope that current non-consumptive purchasers will recognize that hunting is part of the tradition behind the Federal Duck Stamp and will continue to support conservation afforded by Stamp sales. The inclusion of the “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” theme provides the opportunity to present information on the history and tradition of waterfowl hunting in the United States.

Comments regarding marketing of the Duck Stamp, and funding and staffing of the Duck Stamp Program, are beyond the scope of this rule. The need for baseline data on who purchases the Stamp may be sought to develop a marketing strategy for the Duck Stamp Office. The Service welcomes other ideas that may help promote, market, and sell more Duck Stamps, in particular to non-hunters.

(5) Comment: Several artists expressed their discouragement that the Service has not provided enough time to execute their designs between the time the rules are finalized for 2020 and the Contest due date. Most artists expressed resentment of changes that are not finalized more than 12 months ahead of the beginning of the Contest year and would prefer that we provide final Contest rules and each year's eligible species list at least 3 years ahead of the annual Contest open date (June 1). Adding mandatory elements with less than a full year to research and gather reference materials, design, and then execute their entries will prevent some artists from entering the 2020 Contest.

Several artists felt that the mandatory “inclusion of a hunting accessory” would alienate or discourage many artists. By changing hunting elements from optional to mandatory, several artists stated that they will not enter the Contest on principle. Not all artists are waterfowl hunters or are part of the hunting culture, so they expressed the opinion that they would be at a severe disadvantage as to what qualifies as a hunting accessory. It was suggested that “hunting accessories” be kept as “optional” and the rules to read “recommended but not mandatory.”

Another primary concern by artists was that a mandatory theme hampered their creativity. Several felt that the size, position, media, and other restrictions placed on the artwork were already making it difficult for artists to compose their entries.

One commenter analyzed the entries from the 2018 Contest when the “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” theme was mandatory. The commenter remarked on the lack of racial, sexual, generational, and cultural diversity among the scenes portraying hunters. A second commenter was offended that indigenous hunting methods were not described in the rule. A third commented that the lack of rules in the native languages of people in the U.S. States and Territories was prejudicial and discouraged their ability to enter the Contest.

A final commenter felt that it was difficult for anyone else to interpret an artist's idea of a “hunting scene” and others would have difficulty determining what qualified as a “hunting element.”

Service Response: We understand the artists' desire to have rules available to them as early as possible and appreciate the amount of preparation and research needed before artists can design and execute their entries. Unfortunately, we are unable at this time to provide final rules 12 to 36 months ahead of the relevant Contest date. By making this a permanent theme with the mandatory inclusion of waterfowl hunting accessories, artists are hereby informed as to future Contest design requirements. Having a permanent mandatory theme will also allow the Service to set the eligible species lists for successive Contests at least 3 years in advance.

It is not our intention to alienate potential Duck Stamp Contest artists. We hope that the theme will encourage both artists and Stamp purchasers to learn more about the rich tradition of waterfowl hunting. The Federal Duck Stamp has been mandatory to hunt waterfowl since 1934 and has been incredibly successful in conserving habitat for wildlife. By using the theme “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage,” we are recognizing the conservation contributions made by millions of waterfowl hunters over this period. The inclusion of this theme provides the opportunity to present information on the history and tradition of waterfowl hunting in the United States.

Decoys and hunting dogs are among the examples of elements that can be included to satisfy this requirement.

The Duck Stamp Office staff does not like to disqualify any entry and prides itself on advocating for and working with the artists. If an entry is submitted without an identifiable hunting accessory, staff would contact the artist for clarification prior to the Contest start date. In the event that there is a disagreement of the applicability of an element, the Contest Coordinator would be consulted and the argument may be presented to the judging panel for their decision.

It is hoped that the changing demographics of the country will encourage more diversity among artists and in entries. The Service will endeavor to have translations of the entire Contest Brochure available in different languages in the future and will consider developing a single-page Contest Brochure for translation and wider distribution. The Service will rely on liaisons and partnerships to increase and broaden opportunities to promote the Duck Stamp among Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Hawaiian and other Pacific and Caribbean residents living in the States and U.S. Territories.

(6) Comment: There was no opposition expressed to the requirement that all selected contest judges have an understanding and appreciation of the waterfowl hunting heritage and the ability to recognize waterfowl hunting accessories. Rather, several commenters expressed the opinion that waterfowl hunters were the most qualified, or the only ones qualified to judge the Contest.

Other comments were provided on the number and quality of judges on the panel. Proposals ranged from increasing the number of judges from five to seven and dropping the high and low scores; providing judges with a briefing on how to vote; and having the judges pass a competency test.

Service Response: The Service made no changes to the final rule in response to these comments. We will continue to develop a slate of qualified nominees to be judges that will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior, or his or her designee, for concurrence. All potential judges will be deemed as qualified if they have one or more of the following qualifications: Recognized art credentials; knowledge of the anatomical makeup and the natural habitat of the eligible waterfowl species; an understanding of the wildlife sporting world in which the Duck Stamp is used; an awareness of philately and the role the Duck Stamp plays in stamp collecting; and demonstrated support for the conservation of waterfowl and wetlands through active involvement in the conservation community. All selected Contest judges will be vetted prior to nomination to ensure that they have an understanding and appreciation of the waterfowl hunting heritage.

The ability to recognize all waterfowl hunting accessories may necessitate additional discussion and information provided by law enforcement officers (for legality of methods) as well as cultural experts by Contest officials prior to the actual judging process. The Contest Coordinator will provide any necessary background provided from these discussions in his or her briefing remarks with the Contest judges.

The number of judges and testing them for their abilities is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

(7) Comment: Comments from those self-identifying as Duck Stamp collectors were mixed. Some believed that their collecting habits would decrease if the traditional Duck Stamp design was radically altered, while others believed that some variation from the standard design could be well accepted.

Comments were also received from wildlife art collectors and those who collect sporting art. Several felt that imposing the theme and mandatory inclusion of hunting-related accessories on Duck Stamps would further restrict print sales and diminish the value of sporting art.

Service Response: The Service made no change to the final rule in response to these comments. We do not believe that the winning artwork will create a Stamp that will be radically different from historical Stamps.

(8) Comment: Several commenters expressed negative opinions regarding hunting, as well as the possible representation of firearms as part of the Stamp design.

Service Response: Issues regarding gun violence are beyond the scope of this rule. Hunting is a recognized wildlife management tool, and the Service supports the legal and ethical right of lawful hunters to use firearms to hunt wildlife. Contest entries may include other appropriate items to fulfill the thematic requirement that a waterfowl hunting-related accessory and/or scene be included in a contestant's design.

The Service made no changes to the final rule in response to comments received from the proposed rule. As we proposed on January 29, 2020, at 85 FR 5182, this rule incorporates the permanent change to adopt the theme of “celebrating our waterfowl hunting heritage” and the mandatory inclusion of a waterfowl hunting-related scene or accessory in every entry beginning with the 2020 Contest.

Accordingly, this rule sets forth:

• The Contest restriction on subject matter for entries at § 91.14(b).

• Judge qualifications at § 91.21(b).

• Language to reflect the permanent mandatory theme at § 91.23.

We are making this rule effective upon publication (see DATES , above). We provided a 45-day public comment period for the January 29, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 5182). We have determined that any further delay in implementing these regulations would not be in the interest of Contest participants, in that a delay would hinder their ability to address the theme required for the 2020 Contest in submitted artwork. This rule does not impact the public generally. Rather, it impacts the small number of artists who submit artwork to the annual Duck Stamp Contest. Therefore, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication.

For this final rule, we affirm the following required determinations provided in our January 29, 2020, proposed rule (85 FR 5182):

• National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. );

• Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. );

• Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2));

• Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ); and

• Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, 13563, and 13771.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend 50 CFR part 91, as set forth below:

Background

The ocean salmon fisheries in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon, and California are managed under a “framework” Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H, provide the mechanism for making preseason and inseason adjustments to the management measures, within limits set by the FMP, by notification in the Federal Register . 50 CFR 660.408 governs the establishment of annual management measures.

The management measures for the 2020 and early 2021 ocean salmon fisheries that are implemented in this final rule were recommended by the Council at its April 4 to 10, 2020, meeting.

The Council announced its annual preseason management process for the 2020 ocean salmon fisheries in the Federal Register on December 26, 2019 (84 FR 70954), and on the Council's website at www.pcouncil.org. NMFS published an additional notice of opportunities to submit public comments on the 2020 ocean salmon fisheries in the Federal Register on February 12, 2020 (85 FR 7977). These notices announced the availability of Council documents, the dates and locations of Council meetings and public hearings comprising the Council's complete schedule of events for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures, and instructions on how to comment on the development of the 2019 ocean salmon fisheries. The agendas for the March and April Council meetings were published in the Federal Register (85 FR 7922, February 12, 2020, and 85 FR 15433, March 18, 2020, respectively) and posted on the Council's website prior to the actual meetings.

In accordance with the FMP, the Council's Salmon Technical Team (STT) and staff economist prepared four reports for the Council, its advisors, and the public. All four reports were made available on the Council's website upon their completion. The first of the reports, “Review of 2019 Ocean Salmon Fisheries,” was prepared in February when the first increment of scientific information necessary for crafting management measures for the 2020 and early 2021 ocean salmon fisheries became available. The first report summarizes biological and socio-economic data for the 2019 ocean salmon fisheries and assesses the performance of the fisheries with respect to the Council's 2019 management objectives as well as providing historical information for comparison. The second report, “Preseason Report I Stock Abundance Analysis and Environmental Assessment Part 1 for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” (PRE I), provides the 2020 salmon stock abundance projections and analyzes the impacts on the stocks and Council management goals if the 2019 regulations and regulatory procedures were applied to the projected 2020 stock abundances. The completion of PRE I is the initial step in developing and evaluating the full suite of preseason alternatives.

Following completion of the first two reports, the Council met in Rohnert Park, CA, from March 3 to 9, 2020, to develop 2020 management alternatives for proposal to the public. The Council proposed three alternatives for commercial and recreational fisheries management, and six alternatives for treaty Indian fisheries management for analysis and public comment. These alternatives consisted of various combinations of management measures designed to ensure that stocks of coho and Chinook salmon meet conservation goals, and to provide for ocean harvests of more abundant stocks. After the March Council meeting, the Council's STT and staff economist prepared a third report, “Preseason Report II Proposed Alternatives and Environmental Assessment Part 2 for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fishery Regulations” (PRE II), which analyzes the effects of the proposed 2020 management alternatives.

The Council sponsored public hearings via webinar to receive testimony on the proposed alternatives on March 23, 2020, for Washington and Oregon, and on March 24, 2020, for California. The States of Washington, Oregon, and California sponsored meetings in various forums that also collected public testimony, which was then presented to the Council by each state's Council representative. The Council also received public testimony at both the March and April meetings and received written comments at the Council office and electronic submissions via the Council's electronic portal.

The Council met from April 4 to 10, 2020, via webinar, to adopt its final 2020 salmon management recommendations. Following the April Council meeting, the Council's STT and staff economist prepared a fourth report, “Preseason Report III Analysis of Council-Adopted Management Measures for 2020 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” (PRE III), which analyzes the environmental and socio-economic effects of the Council's final recommendations. After the Council took final action on the annual ocean salmon specifications in April, it transmitted the recommended management measures to NMFS, published them in its newsletter, and posted them on the Council website ( www.pcouncil.org ).

The annual salmon management cycle historically begins May 1 and continues through April 30 of the following year. This final rule is effective on May 6, rather than the traditional May 1 date, to accommodate the rulemaking process, as was done in 2019. The rule implementing the salmon fishery management measures in 2019 was effective until the effective date of this 2020 rule and governs fisheries that begin prior to May 6, 2020 (84 FR 19729, May 6, 2019). The majority of fisheries recommended by the Council for 2020 begin after May 6, 2020 and are authorized under this rule. Fisheries scheduled to begin before May 6, 2020, which were authorized under the 2019 rule, are the commercial fisheries from Cape Falcon, OR, to the Oregon/California border and from Pigeon Point, CA, to the U.S./Mexico border, recreational fisheries from Cape Falcon, OR, to Humbug Mountain, OR, and from Horse Mountain, CA, to the U.S./Mexico border, and treaty Indian troll fisheries north of Cape Falcon. For purposes of analyzing the impacts of these fisheries on individual stocks relative to the applicable objectives in the FMP, Council analysts assumed fisheries prior to May 6, 2020, would be conducted under the 2019 management measures for the May 1 to May 6 time period, consistent with the effective date of the 2019 salmon management measures rule and subsequent inseason actions under 50 CFR 660.409.

The environmental assessment (EA) for this action comprises the Council's documents described above (PRE I, PRE II, and PRE III), providing analysis of environmental and socioeconomic effects under NEPA. The EA and its related Finding of No Significant Impact are posted on the NMFS West Coast Region website ( www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast ).

The FMP requires that the fisheries be shaped to meet escapement-based Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation requirements, obligations of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) between the U.S. and Canada, and other conservation objectives detailed in the FMP. In addition, under the MSA, all regulations must be consistent with other applicable law. Because the ocean salmon fisheries are mixed-stock fisheries, this requires “weak stock” management to avoid exceeding limits for the stocks with the most constraining limits. Abundance forecasts for individual salmon stocks can vary significantly from one year to the next; therefore, the stocks that constrain the fishery in one year may differ from those that constrain the fishery in the next. For 2020, several stocks will constrain fisheries; these are described below.

Fisheries south of Cape Falcon, are limited in 2020 primarily by conservation concerns for Klamath River fall-run Chinook salmon (KRFC) and, north of the Oregon/California border, ESA conservation requirements for Oregon Coastal natural (OCN) coho salmon. The KRFC stock was determined in 2018 to be overfished; the Council has developed a rebuilding plan which NMFS has proposed to approve (85 FR 6135, February 4, 2020). Fisheries north of Cape Falcon are limited by conservation concerns for Washington coastal coho salmon stocks, primarily Queets River natural (Queets) and Grays Harbor coho salmon, and ESA conservation requirements for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River natural (LCR) Chinook salmon and Lower Columbia River natural (LCN) coho salmon. Queets coho salmon was determined in 2018 to be overfished; the Council has developed a rebuilding plan which NMFS is considering for approval. The limitations imposed in order to protect these stocks are described below. The alternatives and the Council's recommended management measures for 2020 were designed to avoid exceeding these limitations. In addition to KRFC and Queets coho salmon, three other salmon stocks (Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon (SRFC), Strait of Juan de Fuca natural coho salmon, and Snohomish River natural coho salmon) were also determined in 2018 to be overfished, and the Council has recommended rebuilding plans for these stocks. NMFS proposes to approve the rebuilding plan for SRFC (85 FR 6135, February 4, 2020) and is considering approval for the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Snohomish River natural coho salmon stocks, in addition to Queets coho salmon mentioned above. Meeting conservation objectives for these three overfished stocks (SRFC, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Snohomish River natural coho salmon) will not constrain fisheries in 2020.

KRFC (not ESA-listed): Abundance for this non-ESA-listed stock in recent years has been historically low, and the stock is currently overfished based on spawning escapement in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The FMP defines “overfished” status in terms of a three-year geometric mean escapement level and whether it is below the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Forecast abundance for KRFC in 2020, 186.6 thousand, is the seventh lowest on record; the record low was in 2017, 54.2 thousand. Fisheries in 2020 will be constrained in Oregon and California to meet the requirements of the KRFC harvest control rule in the FMP and the rebuilding plan, to meet a 25.0 percent de minimis exploitation rate, which results in a natural-area spawning escapement projection of 36,206, which is greater than the MSST, but below the maximum sustainable yield spawner escapement (S MSY ). Fisheries south of Cape Falcon, particularly in the Klamath Management Zone (KMZ) from Humbug Mountain, OR, to Horse Mountain, CA, will be constrained to meet this goal, but less so than in 2017 when there was a complete closure of commercial and recreational ocean salmon fishing in the KMZ.

OCN coho salmon (ESA-listed threatened): OCN coho salmon is an aggregate coho salmon stock that largely corresponds to the Oregon coast coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and is a component of the Oregon Production Index (OPI) area coho. Allowable fishery impacts on OCN coho salmon are determined annually using a matrix that considers parental escapement and OPI smolt-to-jack survival. For 2020, both of these criteria are in the “low” category, which limits the total allowable OCN coho salmon exploitation rate to 15.0 percent. OPI area coho production is dominated by hatchery coho salmon. In 2020, the forecast abundance of hatchery produced OPI area coho is only 20 percent of the 2019 forecast. Out of concern that the low abundance of hatchery coho salmon would result in increased fishery impacts on OCN coho salmon, the Council recommended fisheries that are conservative in their impacts on OCN coho salmon, this will constrain fisheries, primarily in Oregon.

Queets coho (not ESA-listed): The Queets coho stock is managed in Council-area and northern fisheries subject to the provisions of the PST. In 2018, NMFS determined that Queets coho was overfished, based on escapements in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Under the FMP and the Council's recommended rebuilding plan, Queets coho is managed for an escapement of 5.8 thousand (S MSY ) natural adult spawners. The forecast abundance of Queets coho in 2020 is 7.8 thousand coho, compared to an average of 14.3 thousand coho over the past decade (2010-2019). Under the criteria of the PST's Southern Coho Management Plan, Queets coho salmon abundance is in the “moderate” category in 2020 and subject to a total exploitation rate limit of 26 percent. Meeting the escapement goal and exploitation rate limit for Queets coho salmon in 2020 will constrain fisheries north of Cape Falcon.

Grays Harbor coho salmon (not ESA-listed): The Grays Harbor coho salmon stock, like Queets coho salmon, is managed in Council-area and northern fisheries subject to provisions of the PST. The forecast abundance of Grays Harbor coho salmon in 2020 is 50 thousand coho, compared to an average of 95.5 thousand coho over the past decade (2010-2019). Under the criteria of the PST's Southern Coho Management Plan, Grays Harbor coho salmon abundance is in the “moderate” category in 2020 and subject to a total exploitation rate limit of 29 percent. Meeting the exploitation rate limit for Grays Harbor coho salmon in 2020 will constrain fisheries north of Cape Falcon.

Puget Sound Chinook salmon (ESA-listed threatened): Impacts on the threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU from Council-managed fisheries are addressed through a 2004 biological opinion. Generally, these impacts are quite low and within the range contemplated in the 2004 opinion. However, because the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU is also impacted by salmon fisheries in Puget Sound and associated freshwater fisheries (collectively referred to as “inside” fisheries), the Council and NMFS usually consider the impacts of Council-area and inside fisheries on Puget Sound Chinook salmon together, and they base their analysis of the combined fishery impacts on a package of Puget Sound fisheries to which the State of Washington and Indian tribes with treaty rights to fish in Puget Sound have agreed through a negotiation process, the North of Falcon forum, that runs concurrent with the Council's salmon season planning process. In 2020, fisheries north of Cape Falcon will be constrained to avoid jeopardy to the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU, when combined with inside fisheries.

LCR Chinook salmon (ESA-listed threatened): The LCR Chinook salmon ESU comprises a spring component, a “far-north” migrating bright component, and a component of north migrating tules. The bright and tule components both have fall run timing. There are twenty-one separate populations within the tule component of this ESU. Unlike the spring or bright populations of the ESU, LCR tule populations are caught in large numbers in Council fisheries, as well as fisheries to the north and in the Columbia River. Therefore, this component of the ESU is the one most likely to constrain Council fisheries in the area north of Cape Falcon. Under the provisions of NMFS' 2012 biological opinion on the impact of Council-area salmon fisheries on LCR Chinook salmon, NMFS uses an abundance-based management (ABM) framework to set an annual exploitation rate limit for LCR tule Chinook salmon in ocean salmon fisheries and in-river fisheries below Bonneville Dam, collectively. Applying the ABM framework to the 2020 preseason abundance forecast, the total LCR tule exploitation rate is limited to a maximum of 38 percent. Fisheries will be constrained north of Cape Falcon in 2020 such that, when combined with all other salmon fisheries in the ocean and in the Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, the ESA requirement is met.

Lower Columbia River natural (LCN) coho salmon (ESA-listed threatened): Like OCN coho salmon, LCN coho salmon is a component of the OPI area coho. In 2015, NMFS conducted an ESA section 7 consultation and issued a biological opinion regarding the effects of Council fisheries and fisheries in the Columbia River on LCN coho salmon. The opinion analyzed the use of a harvest matrix to manage impacts to LCN coho salmon. Under the matrix the allowable harvest in a given year depends on indicators of marine survival and parental escapement to spawning. In 2020, ocean salmon fisheries under the Council's jurisdiction in 2020, and commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam, including select area fisheries ( e.g., Youngs Bay), must be managed subject to a total exploitation rate limit on LCN coho not to exceed 18 percent. In 2020, LCN coho will constrain Council-area salmon fisheries, particularly those north of Cape Falcon, such that, when combined with commercial and recreational fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River, the ESA requirement is met.

Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) (ESA-listed endangered): The SRKW distinct population segment (DPS) was listed under the ESA as endangered in 2005 (70 FR 69903, November 18, 2005). NMFS issued a biological opinion analyzing the effects of the ocean salmon fisheries on SRKW in 2009 which concluded that these fisheries are not likely to jeopardize SRKW. NMFS reinitiated consultation on the effects of the ocean salmon fisheries on SRKW on April 12, 2019. To inform the new consultation, the Council formed an ad hoc workgroup (SRKW Workgroup), including salmon and SRKW experts, at its April 2019 meeting. The Council endorsed a schedule for the workgroup to reassess the effects of Council-area salmon fisheries on SRKW. The SRKW Workgroup was also tasked to, as needed, develop a long-term approach that may include proposed conservation measure(s) or management tool(s) that limits PFMC fishery impacts to prey availability for SRKW relative to implementing the FMP. The SRKW workgroup presented its risk assessment report to the Council at the March 2020 Council meeting.

The SRKW Workgroup report suggests that Chinook salmon abundance north of Cape Falcon is consistently more important to SRKW than abundance in areas south of Cape Falcon. It noted that the whales are observed north of Cape Falcon in all seasons and likely have some direct overlap with the salmon fisheries every year, whereas there is likely limited overlap with the salmon fisheries in some years south of Cape Falcon. Furthermore, the contribution of Chinook salmon south of Cape Falcon to SRKW diet may also be largely confined to the winter/spring season, after maturing fall-run Chinook salmon adults that escaped the current year's fishery leave the ocean. The report also provides evidence that after executing Council-area salmon fisheries, the percent of prey remaining and available to SRKW has increased coastwide over the last several decades. NMFS remains committed to this collaborative effort with the Council to develop a long-term approach that ensures the Council's harvest management is responsive to the status of SRKW and will support SRKW recovery to the extent necessary.

For fisheries in 2020, NMFS explained in our guidance letter to the Council that “NMFS is most concerned when Chinook salmon abundance in [North of Falcon] waters is critically low, and there may be insufficient foraging opportunities for SRKWs.” NMFS concluded in our guidance letter that “[i]f the [North of Falcon] abundance is equal to or less than the average of the seven lowest years of abundance . . . , the Council should implement precautionary conservation measures for Council salmon fisheries that affect the abundance in [North of Falcon] waters . . . to benefit the whales.” Guidance with respect to SRKW was largely informed by the SRKW Workgroup's risk assessment. The Council's recommended management measures for 2020 are consistent with NMFS' guidance.

After receiving the Council's recommended management measures for 2020, NMFS completed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion Consultation on Implementation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council Salmon Fishery Management Plan in 2020 for Southern Resident Killer Whales and their Current and Proposed Critical Habitat. The biological opinion concluded that the 2020 Council-area ocean salmon fisheries would not jeopardize the SRKW DPS and does not aversely modify critical habitat.

Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) are set for two Chinook salmon stocks, SRFC and KRFC, and one coho stock, Willapa Bay natural coho. The Chinook salmon stocks are indicator stocks for the Central Valley Fall Chinook complex and the Southern Oregon/Northern California Chinook complex, respectively. The Far North Migrating Coastal Chinook salmon complex (FNMC) includes a group of Chinook salmon stocks that are caught primarily in fisheries north of Cape Falcon and other fisheries that occur north of the U.S./Canada border. No ACL is set for FNMC stocks because they are managed subject to provisions of the PST between the U.S. and Canada. Other Chinook salmon stocks caught in fisheries north of Cape Falcon are ESA-listed or hatchery produced, and are managed consistent with ESA consultations or hatchery goals. Willapa Bay natural coho is the only coho stock for which an ACL is set, as the other coho stocks in the FMP are either ESA-listed, hatchery produced, or managed under the PST.

ACLs for salmon stocks are escapement-based, which means they establish a number of adults that must escape the fisheries to return to the spawning grounds. ACLs are set based on the annual potential spawner abundance forecast and a fishing rate reduced to account for scientific uncertainty. For SRFC in 2020, the overfishing limit (OFL) is S OFL = 473,183 (potential spawner abundance forecast) multiplied by 1−F MSY (1−0.78) or 104,100 returning spawners (F MSY is the fishing mortality rate that would result in maximum sustainable yield—MSY). S ABC is 473,183 multiplied by 1−F ABC (1−0.70) (F MSY reduced for scientific uncertainty = 0.70) or 141,955. The S ACL is set equal to S ABC, i.e., 141,955 spawners. The adopted management measures provide for a projected SRFC spawning escapement of 233,174. For KRFC in 2020, S OFL is 48,274 (potential spawner abundance forecast) multiplied by 1−F MSY (1−0.71), or 13,999 returning spawners. S ABC is 48,274 multiplied by 1−F ABC (1−0.68) (F MSY reduced for scientific uncertainty = 0.68) or 15,448 returning spawners. S ACL is set equal to S ABC , i.e., 15,448 spawners. When KRFC potential spawner abundance is projected to be less than 54,267 natural-area adults, fisheries are managed under the de minimis portion of the control rule, which allows for some fishing opportunity but results in the expected escapement falling below 40,700 natural-area adult spawners (S MSY ). The adopted management measures provide for a projected KRFC spawning escapement of 36,206. For Willapa Bay natural coho in 2020, S OFL = 32,868 (potential spawner abundance forecast) multiplied by 1−F MSY (1−0.74) or 8,546 returning spawners. S ABC is 32,868 multiplied by 1−F ABC (1−0.70) (F MSY reduced for scientific uncertainty = 0.70) or 9,860. S ACL is set equal to S ABC , i.e., 9,860 spawners. The adopted management measures provide for a projected Willapa Bay natural coho ocean escapement of 27,700. In summary, for 2020, projected abundance of the three stocks with ACLs (SRFC, KRFC, and Willapa Bay natural coho), in combination with the constraints for ESA-listed and non-ESA-listed stocks, are expected to result in escapements greater than required to meet the ACLs for all three stocks with defined ACLs.

As explained in more detail above under “Stocks of Concern,” fisheries north and south of Cape Falcon are constrained by impact limits necessary to protect ESA-listed salmon stocks including OCN and LCN coho and LCR and Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and to meet conservation objectives for non-ESA listed Queets and Grays Harbor coho and KRFC. For KRFC, SRFC, and Willapa Bay natural coho, FMP conservation objectives provide for higher escapement than 2020 ACLs.

The Council invited written comments on developing 2020 salmon management measures in their notice announcing public meetings and hearings (84 FR 70954, December 26, 2019). At its March meeting, the Council adopted three alternatives for 2020 commercial and recreational salmon management measures having a range of quotas, season structure, and impacts, from the least restrictive in Alternative I to the most restrictive in Alternative III, as well as six alternatives for 2020 North of Cape Falcon treaty Indian troll salmon management measures. These alternatives are described in detail in PRE II. Subsequently, comments were taken at three public hearings held in March, staffed by representatives of the Council and NMFS. The Council received 229 written comments on 2020 ocean salmon fisheries via their electronic portal. The three public hearings were attended by a total of 130 people; 20 people provided oral comments. Comments came from individual fishers, fishing associations, fish buyers, processors, and conservation organizations. Written and oral comments addressed the 2020 management alternatives described in PRE II, and generally expressed preferences for a specific alternative or for particular season structures. One comment submitted for the April meeting was focused on fishery effects on ESA-listed SRKW. All comments were made available via the Council's online briefing book for the April 2020 Council meeting and were considered by the Council, which includes a representative from NMFS, in developing the recommended management measures transmitted to NMFS on April 15, 2020. In addition to comments collected at the public hearings and those submitted directly to the Council, several people provided oral comments at the April 2020 Council meeting. NMFS also invited comments to be submitted directly to the Council or to NMFS, via the Federal Rulemaking Portal ( www.regulations.gov ) in a notice (85 FR 7977, February 12, 2020); NMFS received one comment, which was a duplicate of a comment submitted to the Council.

Comments on alternatives for fisheries north of Cape Falcon. For fisheries north of Cape Falcon, Alternative I was favored by most commercial and recreational fishery commenters at the public hearing, some supported a combination of Alternative I and II for the commercial fishery. Concern was expressed about the lack of market for seafood products at the present time. The Council adopted an alternative that is within the range of the alternatives considered.

Comments on alternatives for fisheries south of Cape Falcon. Comments on the alternatives for fisheries south of Cape Falcon tended to favor Alternative I, with some support for Alternative II, and a few supporting Alternative III. There were many objections to a “fourth” alternative that was submitted by a commercial fisherman. Several favored a later season, citing concerns over the current lack of market for seafood products. The Council adopted an alternative within the range of alternatives considered.

Comments from federally recognized tribes, including treaty tribe representatives. At its March and April meetings, the Council heard testimony from members of several federally recognized tribes including tribes with treaty rights for salmon harvest; additional comments were submitted in writing. Tribes expressed concern over the low forecasts for many stocks in 2020 and the ramifications for tribal fisheries.

Comments on SRKW. One comment was received for the April Council meeting, in addition to three comments for the March Council meeting, on potential fishery effects on SRKW. Specific comments were made regarding prey availability, suggesting additional analyses and fishery action, and the draft NEPA document. After considering information provided by NMFS on the potential effects of the 2020 fishery alternatives to SRKW, the Council recommended management measures that were responsive to NMFS' guidance and provide fishery escapement of several Chinook salmon stocks in excess of what is required for spawning.

The Council, including the NMFS representative, took all of these comments into consideration. The Council's final recommendation generally includes aspects of all three alternatives, while taking into account the best available scientific information and ensuring that fisheries are consistent with impact limits for ESA-listed stocks, ACLs, PST obligations, other ESA requirements, and tribal fishing rights. The Council and NMFS also considered comments on the NEPA analysis in preparing the final EA.

The Council's recommended ocean harvest levels and management measures for the 2020 fisheries are designed to apportion the burden of protecting the weak stocks identified and discussed in PRE I equitably among ocean fisheries and to allow maximum harvest of natural and hatchery runs surplus to inside fishery and spawning needs. NMFS finds the Council's recommendations to be responsive to the goals of the FMP, the requirements of the resource, and the socioeconomic factors affecting resource users. The recommendations are consistent with the requirements of the MSA, U.S. obligations to Indian tribes with federally recognized fishing rights, and U.S. international obligations regarding Pacific salmon. The Council's recommended management measures are consistent with the proposed actions analyzed in NMFS' ESA consultations for those ESA-listed species that may be affected by Council fisheries, and are otherwise consistent with ESA obligations. Accordingly, NMFS, through this final rule, approves and implements the Council's recommendations.

North of Cape Falcon, 2020 management measures for non-Indian commercial troll and recreational fisheries have somewhat increased quotas for Chinook salmon compared to 2019; coho quotas are substantially lower than in 2019.

Quotas for the 2020 treaty-Indian commercial troll fishery North of Cape Falcon are 35,000 Chinook salmon and 16,500 coho in ocean management areas and Washington State Statistical Area 4B combined. These quotas provide the same amount of Chinook salmon and substantially fewer coho than in 2019. The treaty-Indian commercial fisheries include a May and June fishery with a quota of 17,500 Chinook, and a July and August fishery, with quotas of 17,500 Chinook and 16,500 coho.

South of Cape Falcon, commercial troll and recreational fishery management measures are are shaped to meet conservation and management goals for KRFC spawning escapement and fishery impact limitations for OCN coho. Commercial and recreational fisheries south of Cape Falcon will be directed primarily at Chinook salmon; commercial fisheries south of Cape Falcon will have no coho retention.

The timing of the March and April Council meetings makes it impracticable for the Council to recommend fishing seasons that begin before May of the same year. Therefore, this action also establishes the 2021 fishing seasons that open earlier than May 6. The Council recommended, and NMFS concurs, that the commercial and recreational seasons will open in 2021 as indicated in the “Season Description” section of this document. At the March and/or April 2021 meeting, NMFS may take inseason action, if recommended by the Council, to adjust the commercial and recreational seasons prior to the effective date of the 2021 management measures which are expected to be effective in mid-May 2021.

The following sections set out the management regime for the ocean salmon fishery. Open seasons and days are described in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the 2020 management measures. Inseason closures in the commercial and recreational fisheries are announced on the NMFS hotline and through the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Notice to Mariners as described in Section 6. Other inseason adjustments to management measures are also announced on the hotline and through the Notice to Mariners. Inseason actions will also be published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable.

The following are the management measures recommended by the Council, approved, and implemented here for 2020 and, as specified, for 2021.

Parts A, B, and C of this section contain restrictions that must be followed for lawful participation in the fishery. Part A identifies each fishing area and provides the geographic boundaries from north to south, the open seasons for the area, the salmon species allowed to be caught during the seasons, and any other special restrictions effective in the area. Part B specifies minimum size limits. Part C specifies special requirements, definitions, restrictions, and exceptions.

May 6 through the earlier of June 28, or 13,820 Chinook. No more than 5,100 of which may be caught in the area between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River, and no more than 3,770 of which may be caught in the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon (C.8). Open seven days per week (C.1). All salmon, except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). In the area between the U.S./Canada border and the Queets River, the landing and possession limit is 75 Chinook per vessel per landing week (Thursday-Wednesday) (C.1, C.6). In the area between Leadbetter Point and Cape Falcon, the landing and possession limit is 75 Chinook per vessel per landing week (Thursday-Wednesday) (C.1, C.6). When it is projected that approximately 75 percent of the overall Chinook guideline has been landed, or approximately 75 percent of any of the individual Chinook subarea guidelines have been landed, inseason action will be considered to ensure the guideline is not exceeded.

In 2021, the season will open May 1 for all salmon except coho consistent with preseason regulations as described for this area and subareas for May 6-June 28, 2020, including subarea salmon guidelines and weekly vessel limits. These regulations would apply from the opening of the fishery on May 1, 2021, until modified inseason following Council review at its March and/or April 2021 meetings. Catch during this opening will be counted towards quotas set for this area and subareas at the April 2021 meeting.

July 1 through the earlier of September 30, or 13,820 Chinook or 2,000 coho (C.8). Open seven days per week. All salmon. Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length. Coho minimum size limit of 16 inches total length (B, C.1). All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.8.e). No chum retention north of Cape Alava, WA, in August and September (C.4, C.7). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Landing and possession limit of 10 marked coho per vessel per landing week (Thursday-Wednesday) (C.1).

For all commercial troll fisheries north of Cape Falcon: Mandatory closed areas include: Salmon troll Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation (YRCA) Area, Cape Flattery, and Columbia Control Zones, and beginning August 10, the Grays Harbor Control Zone (C.5). Vessels must land and deliver their salmon within 24 hours of any closure of this fishery. Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon north of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver all species of fish in a Washington port and must possess a Washington troll and/or salmon delivery license. Vessels may not land fish east of the Sekiu River or east of the Megler-Astoria bridge. For delivery to Washington ports south of Leadbetter Point, vessels must notify the WDFW at 360-249-1215 prior to crossing the Leadbetter Point line with area fished, total Chinook, coho, and halibut catch aboard, and destination with approximate time of delivery. During any single trip, only one side of the Leadbetter Point line may be fished (C.11). Vessels fishing or in possession of salmon while fishing south of Leadbetter Point must land and deliver all species of fish within the area and south of Leadbetter Point, except that Oregon permitted vessels may also land all species of fish in Garibaldi, Oregon. Under state law, vessels must report their catch on a state fish receiving ticket. Oregon State regulations require all fishers landing salmon into Oregon from any fishery between Leadbetter Point, Washington and Cape Falcon, Oregon to notify ODFW within one hour of delivery or prior to transport away from the port of landing by either calling 541-867-0300 ext. 271 or sending notification via email to nfalcon.trollreport@state.or.us. Notification shall include vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, port of landing and location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery. Inseason actions may modify harvest guidelines in later fisheries to achieve or prevent exceeding the overall allowable troll harvest impacts (C.8). Vessels in possession of salmon north of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook, coho, and halibut catch aboard and destination. Vessels in possession of salmon south of the Queets River may not cross the Queets River line without first notifying WDFW at 360-249-1215 with area fished, total Chinook, coho, and halibut catch aboard, and destination (C.11).

April 20-30;

May 1-5, 26-31;

June 4-30;

July 1-31;

August 1-25;

September 1-October 31 (C.8.g, C.9).

Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). All vessels fishing in the area must land their salmon in the State of Oregon. See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Beginning September 1, no more than 75 Chinook allowed per vessel per landing week (Thursday-Wednesday).

In 2021, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). Gear and other restrictions same as in 2020 (C.2, C.3, C.4). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2021 meetings (C.8).

April 20-30;

May 1-5, 26-31;

June 4 through the earlier of June 30, or a 700 Chinook quota;

July 1 through the earlier of July 31, or a 300 Chinook quota (C.8.g, C.9).

Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B, C.1). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Prior to June 4, all salmon caught in this area must be landed and delivered in the State of Oregon.

June 4-July 31 weekly landing and possession limit of 40 Chinook per vessel per landing week (Thursday-Wednesday) (C.8.f). Any remaining portion of Chinook quotas may be transferred inseason on an impact neutral basis to the next open quota period (C.8.b).

All vessels fishing in this area during June and July, must land and deliver all salmon within this area or into Port Orford within 24 hours of any closure of this fishery and prior to fishing outside of this area (C.6).

For all quota managed seasons (June and July), Oregon state regulations require fishers to notify ODFW within one hour of landing and prior to transport away from the port of landing by calling 541-867-0300 Ext. 252 or sending notification via email to kmzor.trollreport@state.or.us, with vessel name and number, number of salmon by species, location of delivery, and estimated time of delivery.

In 2021, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 28 inches total length (B; C.1). Gear restrictions same as in 2020 (C.2, C.3, C.4). This season would open without quota or weekly landing limits unless modified following Council review at its March 2021 meeting (C.8).

Closed (C.9).

In 2021, the season will open May 1 through the earlier of May 31, or a 3,000 Chinook quota. Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length. Landing and possession limit of 20 Chinook per vessel per day (C.8.f). Open five days per week (Friday-Tuesday). All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Any remaining portion of Chinook quotas may be transferred inseason on an impact neutral basis to the next open quota period (C.8.b). All fish caught in this area must be landed within the area, within 24 hours of any closure of the fishery (C.6), and prior to fishing outside the area (C.10). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Klamath Control Zone closed (C.5.e). See California State regulations for an additional closures adjacent to the Smith River. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March or April 2021 meetings.

Closed.

For all commercial fisheries south of Cape Falcon: When the fishery is closed between the OR/CA border and Humbug Mountain (C.11) and open to the south, vessels with fish on board caught in the open area off California may seek temporary mooring in Brookings, Oregon prior to landing in California only if such vessels first notify the Chetco River Coast Guard Station via VHF channel 22A between the hours of 0500 and 2200 and provide the vessel name, number of fish on board, and estimated time of arrival (C.6).

August 1-10;

September 1-30 (C.8.g, C.9).

Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length (B, C.1). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). All salmon must be landed in California and north of Point Arena (C.6).

In 2021, the season will open April 15 for all salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2020. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March or April 2021 meetings.

May 6-12, 18-31;

June 1-6, 14-30;

July 13-31;

August 1-28;

September 1-30 (C.8.g, C.9).

Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length through August, then 26 inches thereafter (B, C.1). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). All salmon must be landed in California. All salmon caught in the area prior to September 1 must be landed and offloaded no later than 11:59 p.m., August 30 (C.6). During September, all salmon must be landed south of Point Arena (C.6, C.11).

In 2021, the season will open May 1 for all salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2020. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March or April 2021 meetings.

• Point Reyes to Point San Pedro (Fall Area Target Zone)

October 1-2, 5-9, 12-15.

Open five days per week (Monday-Friday). All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 26 inches total length (B, C.1). All salmon caught in this area must be landed between Point Arena and Pigeon Point (C.6, C.11). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

May 1-12, 18-31;

June 1-6, 14-30;

July 13-31;

August 1-28 (C.8.g, C.9).

Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho (C.4, C.7). Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length (B, C.1). See compliance requirements (C.1) and gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). All salmon must be landed in California. All salmon caught in the area must be landed and offloaded no later than 11:59 p.m., August 30 (C.6).

In 2021, the season will open May 1 for all salmon except coho. Chinook minimum size limit of 27 inches total length. Gear restrictions same as in 2020. This opening could be modified following Council review at its March or April 2021 meeting.

For all commercial troll fisheries in California: California State regulations require all salmon be made available to a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) representative for sampling immediately at port of landing. Any person in possession of a salmon with a missing adipose fin, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, shall immediately relinquish the head of the salmon to the state (California Fish and Game Code § 8226).

All salmon on board a vessel must meet the minimum size, landing/possession limit, or other special requirements for the area being fished and the area in which they are landed if the area is open or has been closed less than 48 hours for that species of salmon. Salmon may be landed in an area that has been closed for a species of salmon more than 48 hours only if they meet the minimum size, landing/possession limit, or other special requirements for the area in which they were caught. Salmon may not be filleted prior to landing.

Any person who is required to report a salmon landing by applicable state law must include on the state landing receipt for that landing both the number and weight of salmon landed by species. States may require fish landing/receiving tickets be kept on board the vessel for 90 days or more after landing to account for all previous salmon landings.

a. Salmon may be taken only by hook and line using single point, single shank, barbless hooks.

b. Cape Falcon, OR, to the Oregon/California border: No more than 4 spreads are allowed per line.

c. Oregon/California border to U.S./Mexico border: No more than 6 lines are allowed per vessel, and barbless circle hooks are required when fishing with bait by any means other than trolling.

Trolling defined: Fishing from a boat or floating device that is making way by means of a source of power, other than drifting by means of the prevailing water current or weather conditions.

Troll fishing gear defined: One or more lines that drag hooks behind a moving fishing vessel engaged in trolling. In that portion of the fishery management area off Oregon and Washington, the line or lines must be affixed to the vessel and must not be intentionally disengaged from the vessel at any time during the fishing operation.

Spread defined: A single leader connected to an individual lure and/or bait.

Circle hook defined: A hook with a generally circular shape and a point which turns inward, pointing directly to the shank at a 90° angle.

a. Except as provided under C.4.b below, it is unlawful for a vessel to have troll or recreational gear in the water while in any area closed to fishing for a certain species of salmon, while possessing that species of salmon; however, fishing for species other than salmon is not prohibited if the area is open for such species, and no salmon are in possession.

b. When Genetic Stock Identification (GSI) samples will be collected in an area closed to commercial salmon fishing, the scientific research permit holder shall notify NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, USCG, CDFW, WDFW, and Oregon State Police at least 24 hours prior to sampling and provide the following information: The vessel name, date, location, and time collection activities will be done. Any vessel collecting GSI samples in a closed area shall not possess any salmon other than those from which GSI samples are being collected. Salmon caught for collection of GSI samples must be immediately released in good condition after collection of samples.

a. Cape Flattery Control Zone —The area from Cape Flattery (48°23′00″ N lat.) to the northern boundary of the U.S. EEZ; and the area from Cape Flattery south to Cape Alava (48°10′00″ N lat.) and east of 125°05′00″ W long.

b. Salmon Troll YRCA (50 CFR 660.70(c)) —The area in Washington Marine Catch Area 3 from 48°00.00′ N lat.; 125°14.00′ W long. to 48°02.00′ N lat.; 125°14.00′ W long. to 48°02.00′ N lat.; 125°16.50′ W long. to 48°00.00′ N lat.; 125°16.50′ W long. and connecting back to 48°00.00′ N lat.; 125°14.00′ W long.

c. Grays Harbor Control Zone —The area defined by a line drawn from the Westport Lighthouse (46°53′18″ N lat., 124° 07′01″ W long.) to Buoy #2 (46°52′42″ N lat., 124°12′42″ W long.) to Buoy #3 (46°55′00″ N lat., 124°14′48″ W long.) to the Grays Harbor north jetty (46°55′36″ N lat., 124°10′51″ W long.).

d. Columbia Control Zone —An area at the Columbia River mouth, bounded on the west by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 (46°13′35″ N lat., 124°06′50″ W long.) and the green lighted Buoy #7 (46°15′09′ N lat., 124°06′16″ W long.); on the east, by the Buoy #10 line which bears north/south at 357° true from the south jetty at 46°14′00″ N lat., 124°03′07″ W long. to its intersection with the north jetty; on the north, by a line running northeast/southwest between the green lighted Buoy #7 to the tip of the north jetty (46°15′48″ N lat., 124°05′20″ W long.) and then along the north jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line; and, on the south, by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 and tip of the south jetty (46°14′03″ N lat., 124°04′05″ W long.), and then along the south jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line.

e. Klamath Control Zone —The ocean area at the Klamath River mouth bounded on the north by 41°38′48″ N lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles north of the Klamath River mouth); on the west by 124°23′00″ W long. (approximately 12 nautical miles off shore); and on the south by 41°26′48″ N lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles south of the Klamath River mouth).

If prevented by unsafe weather conditions or mechanical problems from meeting special management area landing restrictions, vessels must notify the USCG and receive acknowledgment of such notification prior to leaving the area. This notification shall include the name of the vessel, port where delivery will be made, approximate number of salmon (by species) on board, the estimated time of arrival, and the specific reason the vessel is not able to meet special management area landing restrictions.

In addition to contacting the USCG, vessels fishing south of the Oregon/California border must notify CDFW within one hour of leaving the management area by calling 800-889-8346 and providing the same information as reported to the USCG. All salmon must be offloaded within 24 hours of reaching port.

License applications for incidental harvest for halibut during commercial salmon fishing must be obtained from IPHC. The application deadline was March 15, 2020 to obtain a 2020 license from IPHC.

During the 2020 salmon troll season, incidental harvest is authorized only during April, May, and June, and after June 30 if quota remains and if announced on the NMFS hotline (phone: 800-662-9825 or 206-526-6667). WDFW, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and CDFW will monitor landings. If the landings are projected to exceed the IPHC's 44,899 pound preseason allocation or the total Area 2A non-Indian commercial halibut allocation, NMFS will take inseason action to prohibit retention of halibut in the non-Indian salmon troll fishery.

Beginning May 1, 2020 through the end of the 2020 salmon troll fishery, and beginning April 1, 2021, until modified through inseason action or superseded by the 2021 management measures the following applies: License holders may land no more than one Pacific halibut per each two Chinook, except one Pacific halibut may be landed without meeting the ratio requirement, and no more than 35 halibut may be landed per trip.

Incidental Pacific halibut catch regulations in the commercial salmon troll fishery adopted for 2020, prior to any 2020 inseason action, will be in effect when incidental Pacific halibut retention opens on April 1, 2021 unless otherwise modified by inseason action at the March 2021 Council meeting.

a. “C-shaped” YRCA is an area to be voluntarily avoided for salmon trolling. NMFS and the Council request salmon trollers voluntarily avoid this area in order to protect yelloweye rockfish. The area is defined in the Pacific Council Halibut Catch Sharing Plan in the North Coast subarea (Washington marine area 3), with the following coordinates in the order listed:

In addition to standard inseason actions or modifications already noted under the season description, the following inseason guidance applies:

a. Chinook remaining from the May through June non-Indian commercial troll harvest guideline north of Cape Falcon may be transferred to the July through September harvest guideline if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

b. Chinook remaining from May, June, and/or July non-Indian commercial troll quotas in the Oregon or California KMZ may be transferred to the Chinook quota for the next open period if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

c. NMFS may transfer salmon between the recreational and commercial fisheries north of Cape Falcon if there is agreement among the areas' representatives on the Salmon Advisory Subpanel (SAS), and if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

d. At the March 2021 meeting, the Council will consider inseason recommendations for special regulations for any experimental fisheries (proposals must meet Council protocol and be received in November 2020).

e. If retention of unmarked coho (adipose fin intact) is permitted by inseason action, the allowable coho quota will be adjusted to ensure preseason projected impacts on all stocks is not exceeded.

f. Landing limits may be modified inseason to sustain season length and keep harvest within overall quotas.

g. NMFS may close fisheries through inseason action on the recommendation of the affected state(s) of Washington, Oregon or California where the recommendation to close is informed by an evaluation of actions or orders promulgated or issued by jurisdictions in these areas to address public health concerns concluding that these actions would likely make access to the fishery impracticable ( e.g., restrictions on activities or closure of harbors, launch ramps and other forms of access) or would make information essential to manage and implement the fishery unavailable. NMFS should open fisheries closed on this basis through inseason action upon notice from the affected State(s) that said actions or orders making access to the fishery impracticable have been lifted and information essential to manage and implement the fishery would be available.

Consistent with Council management objectives:

a. The State of Oregon may establish additional late-season fisheries in state waters.

b. The State of California may establish limited fisheries in selected state waters. Check state regulations for details.

Parts A, B, and C of this section contain restrictions that must be followed for lawful participation in the fishery. Part A identifies each fishing area and provides the geographic boundaries from north to south, the open seasons for the area, the salmon species allowed to be caught during the seasons, and any other special restrictions effective in the area. Part B specifies minimum size limits. Part C specifies special requirements, definitions, restrictions and exceptions.

June 20 through the earlier of September 30, or 2,760 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 5,600 Chinook (C.5). Open seven days a week. See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

During June 20-28: All salmon except coho; one salmon per day (C.1).

Beginning June 29: All salmon, except no chum beginning August 1; two salmon per day. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1).

Beginning August 1, Chinook non-retention east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line (C.4.a) during Council managed ocean fishery.

June 20 through the earlier of September 30, or 690 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 1,300 Chinook (C.5). Open seven days a week. See salmon minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

During June 20-28: All salmon except coho; one salmon per day (C.1).

Beginning June 29: All salmon, except no chum beginning August 1; two salmon per day. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1).

June 20 through the earlier of September 30, or 9,800 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 12,460 Chinook (C.5). Chinook minimum size limit of 22 inches total length (B). Coho minimum size limit of 16 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

During June 20-28: Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho; one salmon per day (C.1).

Beginning June 29: Open five days per week (Sunday-Thursday). All salmon; two salmon per day, no more than one of which may be a Chinook. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1).

Grays Harbor Control Zone closed beginning August 10 (C.4.b).

June 20 through the earlier of September 30, or 13,250 marked coho subarea quota, with a subarea guideline of 7,000 Chinook (C.5). Chinook minimum size limit of 22 inches total length (B). Coho minimum size limit of 16 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

During June 20-28: Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho; one salmon per day (C.1).

Beginning June 29, open seven days per week. All salmon; two salmon per day, no more than one of which may be a Chinook. All coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1).

Columbia Control Zone closed (C.4.c).

For all Recreational fisheries north of Cape Falcon: Inseason management may be used to sustain season length and keep harvest within the overall Chinook and coho recreational TACs for north of Cape Falcon (C.5).

March 15-October 31 (C.6), except as provided below during the all-salmon mark-selective fishery and the non-mark-selective coho fishery (C.5). Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two fish per day (C.1). See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

In 2021, the season will open March 15 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Same minimum size limits (B), and the same gear restrictions as in 2020 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2021 meeting (C.5).

Mark-selective coho fishery: June 27 through the earlier of August 16, or 22,000 marked coho quota (C.5.g, C.6). Open seven days per week. All salmon, two salmon per day. All retained coho must be marked with a healed adipose fin clip (C.1). See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3). Any remainder of the mark-selective coho quota may be transferred inseason on an impact neutral basis to the non-selective coho quota from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain (C.5).

Non-mark-selective coho fishery: September 4-5, and open each Friday and Saturday through the earlier of September 30, or 3,000 non-mark-selective coho quota (C.5.g, C.6). Open days may be modified inseason. All salmon, two salmon per day (C.1). See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

June 20-August 7 (C.5.g, C.6). Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). See minimum size limits (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

For recreational fisheries from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain: Fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA restricted to trolling only on days the all depth recreational halibut fishery is open (call the halibut fishing hotline 1-800-662-9825 for specific dates) (C.3.b, C.4.d).

• June 6-August 9 (C.5.f, C.5.g, C.6). Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

Klamath Control Zone closed in August (C.4.e). See California State regulations for additional closures adjacent to the Smith, Eel, and Klamath Rivers.

In 2021, season opens May 1 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2020 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2021 meeting.

May 1-November 8 (C.5.f, C.5.g, C.6). Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

In 2021, season opens April 3 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2020 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2021 meeting.

May 1-November 8 (C.5.f, C.5.g, C.6). Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 20 inches total length. See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

In 2021, season opens April 3 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2020 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2021 meeting.

—Pigeon Point to U.S./Mexico border (Monterey)

May 1-October 4 (C.5.f, C.5.g, C.6). Open seven days per week. All salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B). See gear restrictions and definitions (C.2, C.3).

In 2021, season opens April 3 for all salmon except coho, two salmon per day (C.1). Chinook minimum size limit of 24 inches total length (B); and the same gear restrictions as in 2020 (C.2, C.3). This opening could be modified following Council review at its March 2021 meeting.

California State regulations require all salmon be made available to a CDFW representative for sampling immediately at port of landing. Any person in possession of a salmon with a missing adipose fin, upon request by an authorized agent or employee of the CDFW, shall immediately relinquish the head of the salmon to the state (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 1.73).

All salmon on board a vessel must meet the minimum size or other special requirements for the area being fished and the area in which they are landed if that area is open. Salmon may be landed in an area that is closed only if they meet the minimum size or other special requirements for the area in which they were caught. Salmon may not be filleted prior to landing.

Ocean Boat Limits: Off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, each fisher aboard a vessel may continue to use angling gear until the combined daily limits of Chinook and coho salmon for all licensed and juvenile anglers aboard have been attained (additional state restrictions may apply).

Salmon may be taken only by hook and line using barbless hooks. All persons fishing for salmon, and all persons fishing from a boat with salmon on board, must meet the gear restrictions listed below for specific areas or seasons.

a. U.S./Canada border to Point Conception, CA: No more than one rod may be used per angler; and no more than two single point, single shank barbless hooks are required for all fishing gear.

b. Horse Mountain, CA, to Point Conception, CA: Single point, single shank, barbless circle hooks (see gear definitions below) are required when fishing with bait by any means other than trolling, and no more than two such hooks shall be used. When angling with two hooks, the distance between the hooks must not exceed five inches when measured from the top of the eye of the top hook to the inner base of the curve of the lower hook, and both hooks must be permanently tied in place (hard tied). Circle hooks are not required when artificial lures are used without bait.

a. Recreational fishing gear defined: Off Oregon and Washington, angling tackle consists of a single line that must be attached to a rod and reel held by hand or closely attended; the rod and reel must be held by hand while playing a hooked fish. No person may use more than one rod and line while fishing off Oregon or Washington. Off California, the line must be attached to a rod and reel held by hand or closely attended; weights directly attached to a line may not exceed four pounds (1.8 kg). While fishing off California north of Point Conception, no person fishing for salmon, and no person fishing from a boat with salmon on board, may use more than one rod and line. Fishing includes any activity which can reasonably be expected to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish.

b. Trolling defined: Angling from a boat or floating device that is making way by means of a source of power, other than drifting by means of the prevailing water current or weather conditions.

c. Circle hook defined: A hook with a generally circular shape and a point which turns inward, pointing directly to the shank at a 90° angle.

a. The Bonilla-Tatoosh Line: A line running from the western end of Cape Flattery to Tatoosh Island Lighthouse (48°23′30″ N lat., 124°44′12″ W long.) to the buoy adjacent to Duntze Rock (48°24′37″ N lat., 124°44′37″ W long.), then in a straight line to Bonilla Point (48°35′39″ N lat., 124°42′58″ W long.) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

b. Grays Harbor Control Zone—The area defined by a line drawn from the Westport Lighthouse (46°53′18″ N lat., 124°07′01″ W long.) to Buoy #2 (46°52′42″ N lat., 124°12′42″ W long.) to Buoy #3 (46°55′00″ N lat., 124°14′48″ W long.) to the Grays Harbor north jetty (46°55′36″ N lat., 124°10′51″ W long.).

c. Columbia Control Zone: An area at the Columbia River mouth, bounded on the west by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 (46°13′35″ N lat., 124°06′50″ W long.) and the green lighted Buoy #7 (46°15′09″ N lat., 124°06′16″ W long.); on the east, by the Buoy #10 line which bears north/south at 357° true from the south jetty at 46°14′00″ N lat., 124°03′07″ W long. to its intersection with the north jetty; on the north, by a line running northeast/southwest between the green lighted Buoy #7 to the tip of the north jetty (46°15′48″ N lat., 124°05′20″ W long.) and then along the north jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line; and on the south, by a line running northeast/southwest between the red lighted Buoy #4 and tip of the south jetty (46°14′03″ N lat., 124°04′05″ W long.), and then along the south jetty to the point of intersection with the Buoy #10 line.

d. Stonewall Bank YRCA: The area defined by the following coordinates in the order listed:

e. Klamath Control Zone: The ocean area at the Klamath River mouth bounded on the north by 41°38′48″ N lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles north of the Klamath River mouth); on the west by 124°23′00″ W long. (approximately 12 nautical miles off shore); and, on the south by 41°26′48″ N lat. (approximately 6 nautical miles south of the Klamath River mouth).

Regulatory modifications may become necessary inseason to meet preseason management objectives such as quotas, harvest guidelines, and season duration. In addition to standard inseason actions or modifications already noted under the season description, the following inseason guidance applies:

a. Actions could include modifications to bag limits, or days open to fishing, and extensions or reductions in areas open to fishing.

b. Coho may be transferred inseason among recreational subareas north of Cape Falcon to help meet the recreational season duration objectives (for each subarea) after conferring with representatives of the affected ports and the Council's SAS recreational representatives north of Cape Falcon, and if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

c. Chinook and coho may be transferred between the recreational and commercial fisheries north of Cape Falcon if there is agreement among the representatives of the SAS, and if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

d. Fishery managers may consider inseason action modifying regulations restricting retention of unmarked (adipose fin intact) coho. To remain consistent with preseason expectations, any inseason action shall consider, if significant, the difference between observed and preseason forecasted (adipose-clipped) mark rates. Such a consideration may also include a change in bag limit of two salmon, no more than one of which may be a coho.

e. Marked coho remaining from the Cape Falcon to Humbug Mt. recreational mark-selective coho quota may be transferred inseason to the Cape Falcon to Humbug Mt. non-mark-selective recreational fishery if the transfer would not result in exceeding preseason impact expectations on any stocks.

f. NMFS may by inseason action close recreational fisheries between May 1 and June 15, 2020 in the Fort Bragg, San Francisco, and Monterey subareas on the recommendation of the CDFW. The recommendation to close would be informed by an evaluation of actions or orders enacted by jurisdictions in these subareas to address public health concerns that would make access to the ocean salmon recreational fishery impracticable ( e.g., restrictions on activities or closure of harbors, launch ramps and other forms of access). If NMFS closes these subareas May 1-15, May 16-31, June 1-15, or an additive combination of these specific date ranges in succession; NMFS may by inseason action extend the season in the California KMZ beyond August 9 not to exceed August 31 if the STT determines that such opening would not increase impacts to stocks in the FMP beyond those described in Table 5 of Pre-III for 2020, and would otherwise meet the objectives described in that table, including but not limited to 50/50 harvest sharing with the Klamath River Tribes (Yurok and Hoopa Valley Tribe).

g. NMFS may close fisheries through inseason action on the recommendation of the affected state(s) of Washington, Oregon or California where the recommendation to close is informed by an evaluation of actions or orders promulgated or issued by jurisdictions in these areas to address public health concerns concluding that these actions would likely make access to the fishery impracticable ( e.g., restrictions on activities or closure of harbors, launch ramps and other forms of access) or would make information essential to manage and implement the fishery unavailable. NMFS should open fisheries closed on this basis through inseason action upon notice from the affected State(s) that said actions or orders making access to the fishery impracticable have been lifted and information essential to manage and implement the fishery would be available.

Consistent with Council management objectives, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California may establish limited seasons in state waters. Check state regulations for details.

Parts A, B, and C of this section contain requirements that must be followed for lawful participation in the fishery.

May 1 through the earlier of June 30 or 17,500 Chinook quota.

All salmon may be retained except coho. If the Chinook quota is exceeded, the excess will be deducted from the later all-salmon season (C.5). See size limit (B) and other restrictions (C).

July 1 through the earlier of September 15, or 17,500 Chinook quota, or 16,500 coho quota.

All Salmon. See size limit (B) and other restrictions (C).

All boundaries may be changed to include such other areas as may hereafter be authorized by a Federal court for that tribe's treaty fishery.

S'KLALLAM—Washington State Statistical Area 4B (defined to include those waters of Puget Sound easterly of a line projected from the Bonilla Point Light on Vancouver Island to the Tatoosh Island light, thence to the most westerly point on Cape Flattery and westerly of a line projected true north from the fishing boundary marker at the mouth of the Sekiu River [WAC 220-301-030]).

MAKAH—Washington State Statistical Area 4B and that portion of the fishery management area (FMA) north of 48°02′15″ N lat. (Norwegian Memorial) and east of 125°44′00″ W long.

QUILEUTE—A polygon commencing at Cape Alava, located at latitude 48°10′00″ north, longitude 124°43′56.9″ west; then proceeding west approximately forty nautical miles at that latitude to a northwestern point located at latitude 48°10′00″ north, longitude 125°44′00″ west; then proceeding in a southeasterly direction mirroring the coastline at a distance no farther than 40 nmi from the mainland Pacific coast shoreline at any line of latitude, to a southwestern point at latitude 47°31′42″ north, longitude 125°20′26″ west; then proceeding east along that line of latitude to the Pacific coast shoreline at latitude 47°31′42″ north, longitude 124°21′9.0″ west (per court order dated March 5, 2018, Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington).

HOH—That portion of the FMA between 47°54′18″ N lat. (Quillayute River) and 47°21′00″ N lat. (Quinault River) and east of 125°44′00″ W long.

QUINAULT—A polygon commencing at the Pacific coast shoreline near Destruction Island, located at latitude 47°40′06″ north, longitude 124°23′51.362″ west; then proceeding west approximately 30 nmi at that latitude to a northwestern point located at latitude 47°40′06″ north, longitude 125°08′30″ west; then proceeding in a southeasterly direction mirroring the coastline no farther than 30 nmi from the mainland Pacific coast shoreline at any line of latitude, to a southwestern point at latitude 46°53′18″ north, longitude 124°53′53″ west; then proceeding east along that line of latitude to the Pacific coast shoreline at latitude 46°53′18″ north, longitude 124°7′36.6″ west (per court order dated March 5, 2018, Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington).

a. Single point, single shank, barbless hooks are required in all fisheries.

b. No more than eight fixed lines per boat.

c. No more than four hand held lines per person in the Makah area fishery (Washington State Statistical Area 4B and that portion of the FMA north of 48°02′15″ N lat. (Norwegian Memorial) and east of 125°44′00″ W long.).

a. The quotas include troll catches by the S'Klallam and Makah Tribes in Washington State Statistical Area 4B from May 1 through September 15.

b. The Quileute Tribe will continue a ceremonial and subsistence fishery during the time frame of October 1 through October 15 in the same manner as in 2004-2015. Fish taken during this fishery are to be counted against treaty troll quotas established for the 2020 season (estimated harvest during the October ceremonial and subsistence fishery: 20 Chinook; 40 coho).

a. The area within a six nautical mile radius of the mouths of the Queets River (47°31′42″ N lat.) and the Hoh River (47°45′12″ N lat.) will be closed to commercial fishing.

b. A closure within two nautical miles of the mouth of the Quinault River (47°21′00″ N lat.) may be enacted by the Quinault Nation and/or the State of Washington and will not adversely affect the Secretary of Commerce's management regime.

a. Chinook remaining from the May through June treaty-Indian ocean troll harvest guideline north of Cape Falcon may be transferred to the July through September harvest guideline on a fishery impact equivalent basis.

Under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, NMFS promulgated regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery, which appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E. On March 13, 2020, NMFS published a final rule announcing the IPHC's regulations, including season dates, management measures, total allowable catch (TACs) for each IPHC management area including the U.S. West Coast (Area 2A) and Catch Sharing Plans for the U.S. waters off of Alaska (85 FR 14586). The Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan, in combination with the IPHC regulations, provides that vessels participating in the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A, which have obtained the appropriate IPHC license, may retain halibut caught incidentally during authorized periods in conformance with provisions published with the annual salmon management measures. A salmon troller may participate in the halibut incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll season or in the directed commercial fishery targeting halibut, but not both.

The following measures have been approved by the IPHC, and implemented by NMFS. During authorized periods, the operator of a vessel that has been issued an incidental halibut harvest license may retain Pacific halibut caught incidentally in Area 2A while trolling for salmon. Halibut retained must be no less than 32 inches (81.28 cm) in total length, measured from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, and must be landed with the head on.

License applications for incidental harvest must be obtained from the IPHC (phone: 206-634-1838). Applicants must apply prior to mid-March 2021 for 2021 permits (exact date to be set by the IPHC in early 2021). Incidental harvest is authorized only during April, May, and June of the 2020 troll seasons and after June 30 in 2020 if quota remains and if announced on the NMFS hotline (phone: 800-662-9825 or 800-526-6667). WDFW, ODFW, and CDFW will monitor landings. If the landings are projected to exceed the 44,899 pound preseason allocation or the total Area 2A non-Indian commercial halibut allocation, NMFS will take inseason action to prohibit retention of halibut in the non-Indian salmon troll fishery.

May 1, 2020, until the end of the 2020 salmon troll season, and beginning April 1, 2021, until modified through insesason action or superseded by the 2021 management measures, license holders may land or possess no more than one Pacific halibut per each two Chinook, except one Pacific halibut may be possessed or landed without meeting the ratio requirement, and no more than 35 halibut may be possessed or landed per trip. Pacific halibut retained must be no less than 32 inches in total length (with head on). IPHC license holders must comply with all applicable IPHC regulations.

Incidental Pacific halibut catch regulations in the commercial salmon troll fishery adopted for 2020, prior to any 2020 inseason action, will be in effect when incidental Pacific halibut retention opens on April 1, 2021, unless otherwise modified by inseason action at the March 2021 Council meeting.

NMFS and the Council request that salmon trollers voluntarily avoid a “C-shaped” YRCA (also known as the Salmon Troll YRCA) in order to protect yelloweye rockfish. Coordinates for the Salmon Troll YRCA are defined at 50 CFR 660.70(a) in the North Coast subarea (Washington marine area 3). See Section 1.C.7 in this document for the coordinates.

Wherever the words “nautical miles off shore” are used in this document, the distance is measured from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

Geographical landmarks referenced in this document are at the following locations:

Cape Flattery, WA 48°23′00″ N lat.

Cape Alava, WA 48°10′00″ N lat.

Queets River, WA 47°31′42″ N lat.

Leadbetter Point, WA 46°38′10″ N lat.

Cape Falcon, OR 45°46′00″ N lat.

Florence South Jetty, OR 44°00′54″ N lat.

Humbug Mountain, OR 42°40′30″ N lat.

Oregon-California border 42°00′00″ N lat.

Humboldt South Jetty, CA 40°45′53″ N lat.

Horse Mountain, CA 40°05′00″ N lat.

Point Arena, CA 38°57′30″ N lat.

Point Reyes, CA 37°59′44″ N lat.

Point San Pedro, CA 37°35′40″ N lat.

Pigeon Point, CA 37°11′00″ N lat.

Point Sur, CA 36°18′00″ N lat.

Point Conception, CA 34°27′00″ N lat.

Notice of inseason management actions will be provided by a telephone hotline administered by the West Coast Region, NMFS, 800-662-9825 or 206-526-6667, and by USCG Notice to Mariners broadcasts. These broadcasts are announced on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 KHz at frequent intervals. The announcements designate the channel or frequency over which the Notice to Mariners will be immediately broadcast. Inseason actions will also be published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable. Since provisions of these management measures may be altered by inseason actions, fishermen should monitor either the telephone hotline or USCG broadcasts for current information for the area in which they are fishing.

This final rule is necessary for conservation and management of Pacific coast salmon stocks and is consistent with the MSA and other applicable law. These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of 16 U.S.C. 1855(d) and 16 U.S.C. 773(c).

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

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to waive the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment, as such procedures would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The annual salmon management cycle traditionally begins May 1 and continues through April 30 of the following year. May 1 was chosen because the pre-May harvests constitute a relatively small portion of the annual catch. The time frame of the preseason process for determining the annual modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures depends on when the pertinent biological data are available. Salmon stocks are managed to meet annual spawning escapement goals or specific exploitation rates. Achieving either of these objectives requires designing management measures that are appropriate for the ocean abundance predicted for that year. These pre-season abundance forecasts, which are derived from previous years' observed spawning escapement, vary substantially from year to year, and are not available until January or February because spawning escapement continues through the fall.

The preseason planning and public review process associated with developing Council recommendations is initiated in February as soon as the forecast information becomes available. The public planning process requires coordination of management actions of four states, numerous Indian tribes, and the Federal Government, all of which have management authority over the stocks. This complex process includes the affected user groups, as well as the general public. The process is compressed into a two-month period culminating with the April Council meeting at which the Council adopts a recommendation that is forwarded to NMFS for review, approval, and implementation of fishing regulations typically effective on May 1. For 2020, even with the waiver of notice and comment, NMFS does not expect the rule to be effective until May 6 to accommodate the completion of the necessary regulatory process to review, approve, and implement these fishing regulations. Providing opportunity for prior notice and public comments on the Council's recommended measures through a proposed and final rulemaking process would require 30 to 60 days in addition to the two-month period required for development of the regulations. Delaying implementation of annual fishing regulations, which are based on the current stock abundance projections, for an additional 60 days would require that fishing regulations for May and June be set in the previous year, without the benefit of information regarding current stock abundance. For the 2020 fishing regulations, the current stock abundance was not available to the Council until February. In addition, information related to northern fisheries and stock status in Alaska and Canada which is important to assessing the amount of available salmon in southern U.S. ocean fisheries is not available until mid- to late-March. Because a substantial amount of fishing normally occurs during May and June, managing the fishery with measures developed using the prior year's data could have significant adverse effects on the managed stocks, including ESA-listed stocks. Although salmon fisheries that open prior to May are managed under measures developed the previous year, as modified by the Council at its March and April meetings, relatively little harvest occurs during that period ( e.g., on average, less than 5 percent of commercial and recreational harvest occurred prior to May 1 during the years 2001 through 2017). Allowing the much more substantial harvest levels normally associated with the May and June salmon seasons to be promulgated under the prior year's regulations would impair NMFS' ability to protect weak and ESA-listed salmon stocks, and to provide harvest opportunity where appropriate. The choice of May 1 as the beginning of the regulatory season balances the need to gather and analyze the data needed to meet the management objectives of the Salmon FMP and the need to manage the fishery using the best available scientific information.

If the 2020 measures are not in place on May 6, salmon fisheries will not open as scheduled. This would result in lost fishing opportunity, negative economic impacts, and confusion for the public as the state fisheries adopt concurrent regulations that conform to the Federal management measures.

Overall, the annual population dynamics of the various salmon stocks require managers to adjust the season structure of the West Coast salmon fisheries to both protect weaker stocks and provide access to stronger salmon stocks, particularly hatchery produced fish. Failure to implement these measures immediately could compromise the status of certain stocks, or result in foregone opportunity to harvest stocks whose abundance has increased relative to the previous year thereby undermining the purpose of this agency action.

In addition, these measures were developed with significant public input. Public comment was received and considered by the Council and NMFS throughout the process of developing these management measures. As described above, the Council took comment at its March and April meetings, and heard summaries of comments received at public meetings held between the March and April meetings for each of the coastal states. NMFS also invited comments in a notice published prior to the March Council meeting, and considered comments received by the Council through its representative on the Council.

Based upon the above-described need to have these measures effective on May 6 and the fact that there is limited time available to implement these new measures after the final Council meeting in April and before the commencement of the 2020 ocean salmon fishing year on May 6, NMFS has concluded it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide an opportunity for prior notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries also finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this final rule. As previously discussed, data were not available until February and management measures were not finalized until mid-April. These measures are essential to conserve threatened and endangered ocean salmon stocks as well as potentially overfished stocks, and to provide for harvest of more abundant stocks. Delaying the effectiveness of these measures by 30 days could compromise the ability of some stocks to attain their conservation objectives, preclude harvest opportunity, and negatively impact anticipated international, state, and tribal salmon fisheries, thereby undermining the purposes of this agency action and the requirements of the MSA.

To enhance the fishing industry's notification of these new measures, and to minimize the burden on the regulated community required to comply with the new regulations, NMFS is announcing the new measures over the telephone hotline used for inseason management actions and is posting the regulations on its West Coast Region website ( www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/west-coast ). NMFS is also advising the states of Washington, Oregon, and California on the new management measures. These states announce the seasons for applicable state and Federal fisheries through their own public notification systems.

Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required for this rule and none has been prepared.

This action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0433. The current information collection approval expires on August 30, 2020, and is in the process of being renewed (85 FR 17314, March 27, 2020). The public reporting burden for providing notifications if landing area restrictions cannot be met is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

NMFS has current ESA biological opinions that cover fishing under these regulations on all listed salmon species. NMFS provided guidance on the impact limits for all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species, given annual abundance projections, in our annual guidance letter to the Council dated February 27, 2020. The management measures for 2020 are consistent with the biological opinions. The Council's recommended management measures therefore have been determined not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed salmon species which may be affected by Council fisheries or adversely modify critical habitat. In some cases, the recommended measures are more restrictive than necessary for ESA compliance.

NMFS consulted on the effects of the ocean salmon fisheries on the ESA-listed SRKW DPS in 2009. As discussed above, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the effects of the ocean salmon fisheries on SRKW on April 12, 2019. NMFS has assessed the potential impacts of the 2020 management measures to SRKW in a biological opinion, and has made a determination under ESA section 7(a)(2) that the 2020 fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the SRKW DPS or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical or proposed habitat.

This final rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with the affected tribes. The tribal representative on the Council made the motion for the regulations that apply to the tribal fisheries.