Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2019-29, dated August 12, 2019 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-1076.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2020 (85 FR 3553). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an in-flight event where a flightcrew observed a SPOILER FAIL message and had difficulty maintaining roll control of the airplane. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with procedures related to roll spoiler failures that reduce the flightcrew workload during this type of failure scenario. The FAA is issuing this AD to address uncommanded deployment of the multi-function spoiler at certain positions, which in combination with specific flap positions and airspeeds, could create an unacceptably high flightcrew workload in maintaining roll control of the airplane and could possibly lead to loss of controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Net Jets requested that the FAA use the latest service information. Net Jets stated that Bombardier has released Challenger 350 Airplane Flight Manual, Publication No. CH 350 AFM, Revision 24, dated January 15, 2020.

The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraph (g) of this AD specifies to revise the Non-Normal Procedures section of the existing AFM to incorporate the information in Section 05-23, “Flight Controls,” of Bombardier Challenger 350, Airplane Flight Manual, Publication No. CH 350 AFM, Revision 22, dated July 8, 2019 (for the applicable airplanes). The language in paragraph (g) of this AD is designed to allow incorporating the specific information in Section 05-23, regardless of the revision level of the AFM, so long as the language is identical to the information in Section 05-23, “Flight Controls,” Revision 22. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Bombardier has issued Challenger 300 Airplane Flight Manual, Publication No. CSP 100-1, Revision 56, dated July 8, 2019; and Challenger 350 Airplane Flight Manual, Publication No. CH 350 AFM, Revision 22, dated July 8, 2019. This service information describes non-normal procedures for flight controls. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial numbers. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 577 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2010-30R2, dated July 30, 2019, (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0099.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-23-04, Amendment 39-16493 (75 FR 68174, November 5, 2010) (“AD 2010-23-04”). AD 2010-23-04 applied to all De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2020 (85 FR 14423). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked nacelle attachment fittings, which a preliminary investigation determined to be caused by stress corrosion, and a determination that it is necessary to install new nacelle attachment fittings in order to address the unsafe condition. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive detailed inspections of the nacelle attachment fittings for cracks, a conductivity inspection of the nacelle attachment fittings, and replacement if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to remove a certain inspection requirement for certain airplanes, and add a new requirement to replace the rear spar fitting and nacelle attaching structure with a new nacelle attachment fitting. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reports of cracked nacelle attachment fittings, which, if not detected and corrected, could compromise the structural integrity of the nacelle attachment fitting and possibly result in collapse of the landing gear. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 84-54-14, Revision K, dated August 7, 2018. This service bulletin describes procedures for a conductivity inspection of the nacelle attachment fittings, repetitive detailed inspections of the nacelle attachment fittings for cracks, and replacement of the fitting.

Bombardier, Inc. has also issued Service Bulletin 84-54-16, Revision D, dated August 7, 2018. This service information describes procedures for replacing the rear spar nacelle attachment fitting and associated structure with a new nacelle attachment fitting, part number (P/N) 8Z9305. The replacement includes applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include an inspection of the internal bore and external surface of the main landing gear yoke pins, the drag strut pins, and the stabilizer brace pins for signs of corrosion and damage; and an inspection of the inner bore and outer surface of the coat hangar pins for signs of corrosion and damage. The corrective actions include repair, rework, or replacement.

Bombardier, Inc. has also issued Modification Summary Package IS4Q5400012, Revision B, dated July 11, 2012. This service information describes procedures for applying a fay sealant gasket to the rear spar access fitting access panel.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

Background.

On October 23, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published a final rule (2015 Rule) to amend its regulations for hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. 80 FR 64325. The 2015 Rule imposed prohibitions on certain types of harvest practices that are or could be authorized by the State of Alaska in national preserves. The specific practices addressed by the rule are: Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; harvesting brown bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9); taking swimming caribou; taking caribou from motorboats under power; taking black bears over bait; and, using dogs to hunt black bears. In addition, the 2015 rule prohibited any State authorization or management action from being allowed in Alaska preserves if it related to a predator reduction effort, meaning with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural populations or processes in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. The prohibition of these practices is inconsistent with State of Alaska hunting regulations found at 5 AAC Part 85.

Since early 2017, several actions have occurred which lead the NPS to reconsider portions of the 2015 rule that affect hunting and trapping opportunities on Alaska preserves and contradict State harvest regulations and wildlife management decisions. On March 2, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation, in order to “enhance conservation stewardship, increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species and their habitat.” On September 15, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with State, Tribes, and Territories, to “enhance and expand upon Secretary's Order 3347 and further implement the recommendations provided by the Secretary.” On September 10, 2018, Secretary Zinke issued a memorandum to the heads of Department of the Interior bureaus recognizing States as the first-line authorities for fish and wildlife management and expressing a commitment to defer to States in this regard except as otherwise required by Federal law. The memorandum further directed agencies to review all regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining to fish and wildlife conservation and management, specifically provisions that are more restrictive than otherwise applicable State provisions.

Additionally, on April 3, 2017, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule for Alaska National Wildlife Refuges that was nearly identical in substance to the aspects of the 2015 Rule at issue in this rulemaking was repealed under the authority of the Congressional Review Act. See Public Law 115-20, 131 Stat. 86. House and Senate sponsors of the law strongly criticized those aspects of the NPS's 2015 Rule, e.g., 163 Cong. Rec. H1260 (Feb. 16, 2017), S1864-69 (Mar. 21, 2017), but acknowledged that repeal through the Congressional Review Act was time-barred, id. at S1868 (remarks of Sen. Murkowski). With the passage of a joint resolution of disapproval, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot promulgate substantially similar regulations until specifically authorized by law. 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2). While refuges operate under different frameworks than national preserves, this action by Congress was taken into account when interpreting consistency with the authorities and principles that were common to both rulemakings, including statutory requirements for wildlife management activities to be carried out under State law, as well as in considering how to complement regulations on surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable.

In light of the aforementioned actions and resulting analysis, the NPS has revisited its approach regarding the authorizations that are the subject of this rule, focusing on the statutory scheme that requires the management of hunting and trapping in preserves under State law and reserves limited closure authority to NPS for enumerated purposes. This rule complements State regulations by more closely aligning harvest opportunities in national preserves with harvest opportunities on surrounding lands. See Secretary's Order 3347, Sec. 1 and 2; and Secretary's Order 3356, Sec. 4.b.(4) and 4.d.(7); September 10, 2018, Memorandum. As mandated by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), Public Law 96-487, 94 Stat. 2383, the NPS has consistently deferred to State laws, regulations, and management of hunting and trapping, other than for subsistence uses by rural Alaska residents under Federal regulations, in national preserves since their establishment in 1980. This rule acknowledges this longstanding deference to State law required by statute in removing the hunting and trapping prohibitions identified in this rule.

Both the 2015 rule and the individual preserve closures that preceded it were intended to prevent any “conflict with laws and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural wildlife populations” and the State authorizations at issue in this rule were not “allowed on NPS lands” for that reason. 80 FR 64326-27. The harvest prohibitions were based on a view of the NPS legal and policy framework that was at odds with statutory mandates, and not on concerns over wildlife population-level effects from allowing those uses. 80 FR 64334. The NPS has carefully reassessed whether the State hunting and trapping authorizations applicable within Alaska preserves are prohibited by other law or policy.

As a part of the National Park System, each preserve must be “administered in accordance with the provisions of any statute made specifically applicable to that area.” General Authorities Act of 1970, Public Law 91-383, Sec. 2(b), 84 Stat. 826. ANILCA specifically provides that “the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[.]” 16 U.S.C. 3201. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 provided for the transfer of “the administration and management of the fish and wildlife resources of Alaska” from the Federal Government to the State of Alaska. Public Law 85-508, Sec. 6(e), 72 Stat. 341; Executive Order 10857, Dec. 29, 1959; Letter to Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives, from Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, Apr. 27, 1959 (“I hereby certify that the Alaska State Legislature has made adequate provision for the administration, management, and conservation of the fish and wildlife resources of Alaska in the broad national interest.”). This general Federal-State relationship was confirmed in 43 CFR 24.1(a), which found that “Federal authority exists for specified purposes while State authority regarding fish and resident wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence of specific, overriding Federal law.”

This specific Federal-State relationship was also confirmed in ANILCA, in which Congress established and set aside national preserves in Alaska as NPS-administered units where sport hunting and trapping shall continue being managed by the State of Alaska, except that the “Secretary may designate zones where and periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.” Public Law 96-487, Secs. 203, 1313, 1314, 94 Stat. 2483-84; see also S. Rep. No. 96-413, at 307-08 (1979) (describing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' intent to “preserv[e] the status quo with regard to the responsibility and authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, and . . . [a]t the same time . . . confir[m] the status quo with regard to the authority of the Secretary to manage the wildlife habitat on federal lands” and noting “the statutory requirement that the taking of fish and wildlife be allowed does not deprive the Secretary of his traditional authority to close public lands . . . to the taking of fish and wildlife under statutory criteria”).

As stated in a 1981 NPS rulemaking to begin implementing the just-passed ANILCA, the “desire to continue sport fishing and hunting on all public lands in Alaska [was] a consistent and dominant theme of the public participation process during the development and final passage” of ANILCA. 46 FR 5642. In 1983, NPS promulgated 36 CFR 2.2(b)(1), providing that “[h]unting shall be allowed in park areas where such activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law.” The NPS Management Policies provided the following guidance: “In the administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use; however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the use to ensure, to the extent possible, that impacts on park resources from that use are acceptable.” Management Policies 2006, Sec. 1.4.3.1. As described in more detail below, analysis including more recent harvest data and the best available science does not demonstrate potential for unacceptable impacts to park resources from removing the prohibitions at issue in this rule.

In a 1982 Master Memorandum of Understanding, both the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and NPS agreed that ANILCA “and subsequent implementing regulations recognize that the resources and uses of Service lands in Alaska are substantially different than those of similar lands in other states and mandate continued subsistence uses in designated National Parks plus sport hunting and fishing, subsistence, and trapping uses in National Preserves under applicable State and Federal laws and regulations[.]” As outlined above, this includes NPS authority to, after consultation with ADFG, prohibit sport hunting, fishing, or trapping “for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.” 16 U.S.C. 3201. Although the 2015 rule predominantly stemmed from finding state authorizations that “liberalize predator harvest in areas that included national preserves” were in “conflict with laws and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural wildlife populations[,]” it also referenced a need to “protect fauna and provide for public use and enjoyment consistent with ANILCA” as well as “public safety concerns associated with baiting.” 80 FR 64326, 64329. Whether or to what extent these findings and reasons continue to apply was examined throughout the course of this rulemaking, and is explored in greater detail in the Responses to Comments.

In addition to reconsidering the 2015 Rule in light of the requirements in ANILCA, new population data and information, and Congressional action, the NPS completed an Environmental Assessment, which was revised after the public comment period on this rule (as revised, the EA) to analyze the impacts these hunting methods would have on national preserves in Alaska. Similar to its findings in 2015, the EA concludes that under this rule, for the foreseeable future, healthy populations of wildlife will continue to exist in a manner consistent with the range of natural variability. This conclusion is based upon the low levels of additional take that are anticipated to occur under this rule. The NPS's findings regarding low levels of additional take are based upon harvest data from 2012-2016 that were not available to the NPS when it promulgated the 2015 Rule. This new data was provided by the State, and is more fully discussed in the EA (see EA, section 3.2.2). The conclusions in the EA are also based on the NPS's authority to take action whenever necessary to protect NPS resources and values from unacceptable impacts, including implementing specific, local closures to hunting and trapping pursuant to ANILCA. 16 U.S.C. 3201.

As stated in the EA, allowing the State regulations to apply within national preserves is not anticipated to cause population-level effects, and any reductions in opportunities for take of predator species over the long-term, or increases in prey species, are expected to be minimal and localized. Under Article VIII, Section 4, of the Alaska Constitution, the State manages take of wildlife under a “sustained yield principle” which “denotes conscious application insofar as practicable of principles of management intended to sustain the yield of the resource being managed” and “balance[s] maximum use of natural resources with their continued availability to future generations.” See The Alaska Constitutional Convention, Proposed Constitution for the State of Alaska: A Report to the People of Alaska (1956). In accordance with this principle, which applies to both predator and prey populations, the State has assured the NPS that, in the event harvest were to increase beyond sustainable levels, the ADFG would close seasons by emergency order, if immediate action was necessary, and/or recommend more conservative seasons, bag limits, and/or methods to the Alaska Board of Game for future hunting seasons.

Application of the statutes and policies at issue is addressed in more detail in the Responses to Comments below, but generally, the NPS finds that the potential effect of the harvest practices does not threaten impairment of park resources under the Organic Act or the maintenance of healthy populations under ANILCA. Having reconsidered its prior position in light of specific mandates under ANILCA for Alaska preserves, revised guidance, new information, and the impacts permitting these hunting methods on national preserves in Alaska would have, the NPS has now determined that its 2015 characterization of the harvest methods as conflicting with NPS laws and policies was inconsistent with applicable law allowing hunting and trapping in national preserves. For these reasons, as explained in more detail below, the NPS promulgates this rule.

On May 22, 2018, the NPS published the proposed rule in the Federal Register . 83 FR 23621. This rule was open for an initial 60-day public comment. The NPS extended the comment period twice, first on July 19, 2018, 83 FR 34094, and again on September 6, 2018, 83 FR 45203, in response to requests from the public for more time to review the proposal. In total, the comment period was open for 168 days including both extensions. The comment period closed on November 6, 2018. The NPS invited comments through the mail, hand delivery, and through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The NPS received approximately 211,780 pieces of correspondence on the proposed rule with a total of 489,101 signatures. Of the 211,780 pieces of correspondence, approximately 176,000 were form letters and approximately 35,000 were unique comments.

The NPS also held several government to government consultation meetings with the State of Alaska and Alaska Native tribes and corporations. Consultation meetings were requested by the State, 12 tribal entities, and two corporations; meetings were conducted in February, March, and October of 2018.

A summary of the pertinent issues raised in the comments received and NPS responses are provided below. After consultation, considering public comments, and revising the EA, the NPS did not make any changes in the final rule.

1. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule violates the mandate in the NPS Organic Act that the NPS regulate the use of the National Park System to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101.

NPS Response: Through the Organic Act, Congress granted the NPS broad discretion over how to regulate activities within National Park System units. In national preserves in Alaska, however, Congress narrowed the scope of the NPS's discretion with respect to the harvest of wildlife, directing that national preserves shall be managed “in the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[.]” 16 U.S.C. 3201. No specific provision in the Organic Act as limited by ANILCA prohibits the harvest methods that are the subject of this rule, and the NPS has determined this rule will not result in unacceptable impacts or an impairment of park resources. See Non-Impairment Determination appended to the Finding of No Significant Impact for the EA. In light of new policy direction, revised guidance, newly available harvest data showing low levels of take, State law requiring the management of wildlife under the sustained yield principle, and a review of the impacts permitting these hunting methods on national preserves in Alaska would have, the NPS has determined that its 2015 determination that the harvest practices violated the Organic Act failed to take into account applicable statutory requirements under ANILCA.

The EA concludes that due to the low levels of additional take anticipated under this rule, and considering the NPS's closure authority under ANILCA, healthy populations of wildlife will continue to exist in a manner consistent with the range of natural variability for the foreseeable future. Finally, for reasons discussed in the response to Comment 5, the NPS has concluded State management provided by ANILCA modifies and does not violate applicable NPS Management Policies that explain how the NPS implements the Organic Act and other laws that apply to the National Park System. Accordingly, the NPS has reconsidered its position in the 2015 Rule and concluded that allowing the hunting practices at issue in this rule would not violate the Organic Act.

2. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule violates Sec. 101(b) of ANILCA, which states that Congress intends that the statute provide for the maintenance of sound populations of wildlife species.

NPS Response: ANILCA states that Congress intended the statute to provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for, wildlife species. 16 U.S.C. 3101(b). Specific to national preserves, each was established to allow for continued hunting and trapping under State management and, among other reasons, “to protect habitat for and populations of fish and wildlife.” 16 U.S.C. 410hh, 410hh-1. Three units include references to natural processes and/or biological processes in describing how the unit is to be managed. 16 U.S.C. 410hh(1) (Aniakchak National Preserve: “to study, interpret, and assure continuation of the natural process of biological succession”), 410hh(8) (Noatak National Preserve: “To maintain the environmental integrity of the Noatak River and adjacent uplands within the preserve in such a manner as to assure the continuation of geological and biological processes unimpaired by adverse human activity”), 410hh(10) (Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve: “To maintain the environmental integrity of the entire Charley River basin, including streams, lakes and other natural features, in its undeveloped natural condition for public benefit and scientific study”). Title VIII of ANILCA, pertaining to subsistence uses, refers multiple times to managing for “conservation of healthy populations” of wildlife in national preserves. ANILCA also requires the NPS to allow the taking of wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves under applicable State and Federal law and regulation. 16 U.S.C. 3201, 3202. Therefore some level of sport hunting is appropriate and compatible with the various provisions of the law.

ANILCA does not address specific harvest methods; rather, it defers to State fish and game management to establish methods and means and provides limited closure authority to the NPS for the protection of resources. It provides that agencies should manage wildlife using recognized principles of fish and wildlife management. 16 U.S.C. 3101(c), 3112(1). The State's legal framework for managing wildlife in Alaska is based on the principle of sustained yield, see Alaska Constitution Article VIII, Section 4, which is defined as “achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of human harvest of game, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, on an annual or periodic basis.” AS 16.05.255. The State's constitutional mandate for sustained yield is consistent with NPS Management Policies, which state that the NPS “manages [wildlife] harvest to allow for self-sustaining populations of harvested species.” NPS Management Policies 2006, Sec. 4.4.3. The State asserts that it is legally obligated to implement this framework in a way that will maintain sustainable populations of wildlife. The State also maintains that the effects on wildlife populations from allowing these harvest methods in particular locations within national preserves will likely be negligible based on its analysis of similar harvest practices elsewhere in the state. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in the EA that population-level effects are not anticipated, and healthy populations of wildlife would continue to exist in a manner consistent with the range of natural variability. The State of Alaska assures the NPS that it is required to and will take immediate action if necessary to ensure sustainable population levels. This stated approach for managing wildlife is consistent with the direction in ANILCA to maintain sound populations of wildlife species.

The rule also does not diminish the limited closure authority of the NPS to designate areas and periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed in national preserves for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 3201. ANILCA specifically granted this authority to the Secretary, and the NPS could implement specific, local closures if, when, and where necessary to prevent unacceptable impacts. For these reasons, this rule is consistent with the requirement in ANILCA to provide for the maintenance of sound populations of wildlife species in national preserves.

3. Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion about the term “sport hunting” and stated that the proposed rule violates ANILCA because it authorizes methods of sport hunting that are not “sporting.”

NPS Response: ANILCA states that “the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and regulation.” 16 U.S.C. 3201. Although ANILCA defines “subsistence uses” under 16 U.S.C. 3113, it does not define “sport purposes.” ANILCA defines who may engage in subsistence hunting under Title VIII, but does not restrict or otherwise define who may engage in sport hunting in national preserves. ANILCA is also silent in regard to harvest methods that can, and cannot, be used for sport purposes. Lacking any indication in the statute that Congress intended the phrase “sport purposes” to have a specialized meaning, the NPS finds that the term was used by Congress merely to distinguish subsistence hunting from other types of hunting. Thus, it is the NPS's position that hunting for “sport purposes” is the harvest of wildlife in national preserves in Alaska that is authorized under applicable State and Federal law and that does not qualify as subsistence hunting under Title VIII. This represents a change from the 2015 rule in how the NPS has implemented ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting.

In ANILCA Sec. 1314, regarding the “Taking of Fish and Wildlife,” Congress expressly retained the status quo regarding the respective responsibilities and authorities of “the State of Alaska for management of fish and wildlife on the public lands” and “the Secretary over the management of the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. 3202. The legislative history explains that, “for the National Park System components, this provision intends to make applicable in Alaskan Parks and Preserves the same Federal-State relations on fish and wildlife management that apply in lower 48 State national parks and preserves.” 126 Cong. Rec. S15129, S15131 (Dec. 1, 1980).

With few exceptions, compendiums in National Park System units where Congress has mandated hunting, trapping, and fishing are consistent with State harvest regulations. In its comments on the proposed rule, the State noted that “national park units with mandated hunting in other states also allow activities that the proposed NPS Alaska rule will allow.” State of Alaska letter to NPS Regional Director re: RIN 1024-AE38, p. 13 (Nov. 2, 2018) (2018 State Comments). This included, at the time, 25 national park units with year-round coyote seasons, six of which allow the use of artificial light, seven units which allow hunting black bears with dogs, and four which allow the harvest of black bears over bait. Moreover, unlike national preserves in Alaska, some of the units which allow these practices have explicit statutory closure authority for wildlife management or faunal protection and management in their enabling legislation.

The position taken by the NPS in this final rule is supported by the State's comments on the proposed rule, which likewise determined that the methods that are the subject of this rule qualify as taking wildlife for “sport purposes” under ANILCA. It also furthers the direction in Secretary's Order 3356 and the September 10, 2018, Memorandum that hunting regulations for NPS lands and waters should complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable.

4. Comment: Several commenters stated that allowing sport hunters to use the same harvest methods as subsistence users frustrates ANILCA's subsistence preference in Title VIII.

NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that this rule increases harvest opportunities for individuals hunting under State regulations in national preserves, which could increase competition with rural Alaska resident subsistence users in these locations. The NPS does not expect that the State's allowance of these harvest practices in national preserves will increase harvest levels to the degree that there are population-level impacts. This is supported by the NPS's analysis and conclusions in its ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation and Finding appended to the EA. Qualified rural Alaska resident subsistence users will continue to have the opportunity to hunt in accordance with Federal subsistence regulations. Title VIII of ANILCA ensures rural Alaska residents have a priority for customary and traditional consumptive uses of fish and wildlife resources in national preserves in Alaska where conservation concerns require limitations on harvest. 16 U.S.C. 3114. This rule does not change the methods and means for Federal subsistence harvest in national preserves and does not change the priority for subsistence uses in ANILCA. The Federal Subsistence Board has the authority to address competition among user groups in a variety of ways in order to provide a priority for rural Alaska resident subsistence users where there is a conservation concern.

Further, rural Alaska resident subsistence users may harvest wildlife in national preserves under Federal subsistence regulations or State regulations, depending on the advantage. Some of the State authorizations that would no longer be prohibited under this rule were initially requested by rural Alaska resident subsistence users to allow cultural and traditional harvest and resource management practices to continue in their use area, which can include proposals to the State of Alaska Board of Game and/or the Federal Subsistence Board to either allow for or prevent certain harvest practices from being allowed in Alaska preserves.

For example, in addressing proposals to allow take of cubs and females with cubs in dens as “an opportunity for local people to take meat and to practice these customary and traditional methods,” the Alaska Board of Game clarified the limited allowance was “an attempt to move towards this goal of recognizing some of the customary and traditional practices that go on out in the Bush. A way people get food . . . this is in no way part of any predator management program.” See Transcript of Nov. 10, 2008 Public Meeting of the Alaska Board of Game, quoted in 2018 State Comments, Att. C, at p. 70. This perspective is supported by the proposals to the Board, which reasoned that the fact “these practices were conducted for generations without any substantial, long-lasting or irreversible effects to predator populations is testimony to their ecological integrity, as well as substantiating assertions by Alaska's indigenous people that their traditional harvest activities were/are essentially a part of the evolved ecosystem(s).” Proposal 55 from Orutsararmiut Native Council to the Alaska Board of Game (Nov. 2008).

Subsistence users can also participate directly in the Federal Subsistence Management Program through statewide Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, and Subsistence Resource Commissions advising on specific NPS-administered areas. The Wrangell-St. Elias National Park Subsistence Resource Commission has requested the 2015 rule be rescinded multiple times. At its October 2018 meeting, the Western Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council voted unanimously to support the adoption of State regulations in Alaska preserves, as proposed in this rule. Some concerns for subsistence users tend to reflect the complexity of regulating harvest in Alaska, which council members agreed would be simplified by “having Federal, State, and Park Service regulations match each other as much as possible.” Transcript of Oct. 10, 2018 Public Meeting of the Western Interior Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council at p. 86:10-12.

The Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council maintained a similar position in its comments on the proposed rule. The Council found the “regulations proposed for removal interfere with long-standing cultural practices of rural residents on and off park lands. Wildlife does not recognize administrative boundaries, so the application of different rules on NPS and State lands in areas of mixed land administration creates confusion and intrusion into traditional practices, which interferes with wildlife conservation. In addition, these rules are inconsistent with the rules adopted by the Federal Subsistence Board, adding unnecessary confusion for rural residents.” Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council letter to NPS Regional Director, p. 2 (Nov. 5, 2018). The Council also noted that the 2015 rule had been “adopted despite the Council's strong objection to it based on potential negative effects on Federally qualified subsistence users[,]” including their “abilities to continue traditional practices with their families, while only allowing `sport' uses on National Preserves.” Id. The Council continued to observe that “[m]any rural subsistence users hunt and trap under general State regulations and greatly benefit from those more liberal methods, seasons, and bag limits.” Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council letter to NPS Regional Director, p. 2 (Nov. 20, 2014).

5. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule violates Sec. 4.4.3 of NPS Management Policies with regard to prohibiting predator control. Several commenters stated that the proposed rule violates Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2 of NPS Management Policies with regard to protecting natural ecosystems and processes.

NPS Response: NPS Management Policies explain how the NPS generally will implement the laws that apply to the National Park System, including the NPS Organic Act, and explain how the NPS will manage activities on lands and waters within the System. NPS Management Policies state that the legislative requirements of ANILCA, although not cited directly in the various policies, must be complied with in the interpretation and application of the management policies. NPS Management Policies 2006, Hierarchy of Authorities. NPS Management Policies can only be applied in a manner consistent with ANILCA's mandates, including the special status of the national preserves as park units where hunting and trapping are allowed under State and Federal law. As explained in the response to Comment 2, ANILCA provides for the management of sound populations, with the purposes for three units calling for maintenance of natural and/or biological processes, while at the same time mandating sport hunting.

While NPS Management Policies state that “activities to reduce the numbers of native species for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species ( i.e. predator control)” are not allowed on lands managed by the NPS, NPS Management Policies 2006, Sec. 4.4.3, ANILCA provides that the “taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[,]” 16 U.S.C. 3201. It is the NPS' position that hunting for “sport purposes” is the harvest of wildlife in national preserves in Alaska that is authorized under applicable State and Federal law and that does not qualify as subsistence hunting under Title VIII, as outlined in the response to Comment 3. The NPS is also not allowing these hunting practices in national preserves in Alaska for the purpose of reducing predators, because the State has not provided for predator control activities in Alaska preserves. The State of Alaska's purpose in authorizing these practices is to expand hunting opportunities, rather than as part of a formal predator control or other program designed to reduce a population below sustainable levels. See 2018 State Comments, at p. 22.

In the 2015 Rule, the NPS concluded that the harvest methods prohibited by that rule were inconsistent with NPS Management Policies in Sec. 4.4.3 because the NPS believed that the State's allowance of those methods was motivated by the goal of increasing the number of prey species. The NPS recognizes that requests submitted to the State of Alaska for liberalized harvest methods in game management units (GMUs) that include land within national preserves may have been motivated by a desire to reduce predators in order to increase prey. The NPS also recognizes that individual board members may have voted based in part on a desire to reduce predators. Nonetheless, these are management considerations reserved to the State under ANILCA. The State has shown that “general hunting and trapping regulations are developed under sustained yield concepts for both predator and prey populations where there is a harvestable surplus,” and are distinct from actions which “aim to reduce predator populations and improve prey populations.” Id. The State has also explained that the harvest methods that are the subject of this rule “simply reflect the existence of an abundant population of wildlife and a small segment of the public's desire to hunt them that fit within the sustained yield concept of scientific management Alaska follows.” Id. at p. 18.

The NPS acknowledges that the State made similar assertions about the purpose of the harvest methods subject to this rule in its comments on the 2015 Rule and related environmental assessment (2014 EA), and that the NPS reached a different conclusion then. In reaching this conclusion, the NPS has carefully considered its statutory requirements and authorities, including that its policies must be applied consistent with ANILCA, all of the State's representations and explanations regarding its purposes for the harvest practices, as well as the fact that the NPS's own environmental analysis finds that allowing the harvest methods identified in this rule will still support healthy populations of wildlife within preserves. These findings are supported by 2012-2016 harvest data provided by the State to the NPS. The NPS is also now viewing the State's communications from the perspective inspired by Congressional disapproval and required by revised guidance and policy direction announced by the Secretary since the promulgation of the 2015 Rule. The NPS has determined that the State's representations and explanations regarding the authorizations at issue, as well as the legal and administrative requirements that support them, are more relevant to NPS action than the motivations of individual requesters or state game board members, especially in light of the recent reiteration of the State's position.

Finally, the EA concludes that the hunting practices at issue will not have a significant effect on predator and prey populations and therefore will not have the effect of predator reduction or predator control, regardless of any perception of the purpose of the hunting practices. Based upon the NPS's purpose in complying with its statutory responsibilities to allow for harvest opportunities under State and Federal law, the State's comments on the 2015 Rule, and the State's November 2018 letter asserting that such activities serve to provide hunter opportunity rather than to reduce predators or increase prey, and on the lack of any significant effect of predator reduction in practice, the NPS concludes these hunting activities do not violate Sec. 4.4.3 of the NPS Management Policies in light of the specific statutory requirements related to national preserves.

Several provisions of NPS Management Policies require the NPS to protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006, Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. These policies can be read to be at odds with hunting and trapping, and so it is understandable that Congress established national preserves, new and distinct units of the National Park System where the differentiating characteristic is that harvest is allowed under State and Federal law. As mentioned above, while the NPS Management Policies call for maintaining natural populations, they must be read in the context of ANILCA's specific legal mandate to allow sport hunting in national preserves, which by its very nature is a human intrusion upon natural cycles, and ANILCA's call for preserves to be managed for sound populations of wildlife using limited closure authority. By specifically mandating that hunting be allowed, Congress intended to authorize management for something less than populations untouched by human influence, and this is how the NPS and the State have managed national preserves since ANILCA was enacted.

Section 1.4.3.1 of NPS Management Policies provides that, “[i]n the administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use; however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the use to ensure, to the extent possible, that impacts on park resources from that use are acceptable.” ANILCA limits this authority to closures for specified purposes, including the protection of wildlife. The State maintains that any effects to the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife from implementing its regulations are likely negligible. ADFG letter to NPS Regional Director re: RIN 1024-AE21 (Nov. 26, 2014) (2014 State Comments). While data are limited, the State reports that increased harvest opportunities provided by its regulations have not resulted in meaningful effects on predator or prey abundance. Based upon the analysis in the EA, the NPS believes additional take that could occur from the harvest methods identified in this rule, as currently allowed by the State, would not likely alter natural predator-prey dynamics at the population level or have a significant foreseeable adverse impact to wildlife populations (including natural variability in terms of the range of natural variability), or otherwise impair park resources. As noted above, the NPS retains the authority to designate areas and periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed in national preserves for purposes of protecting wildlife. 16 U.S.C. 3201. For these reasons, the NPS does not believe these harvest practices violate NPS Management Policies Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2.

6. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule does not advance the purposes of Secretary's Orders 3347 and 3356 because it would only affect harvest opportunities on 6% of lands in the State of Alaska and would not have any effect on harvest under Federal subsistence regulations.

NPS Response: Section 1 of Secretary's Order 3347 identifies the purpose of the Order by stating that the Department of the Interior shall increase “outdoor recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, for all Americans.” Section 2 says that the Department will “expand recreational and conservation opportunities for all Americans,” including through the “expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities.” Section 4.b.(4) of Secretary's Order 3356 directs the NPS to identify whether hunting opportunities on NPS lands could be expanded.

Allowing hunting and trapping opportunities under State law on national preserves is consistent with the direction in Secretary's Orders 3347 and 3356. The Orders do not establish a minimum acreage, percentage of the hunting population, or access threshold that would qualify as an expansion of hunting opportunities as that policy goal is articulated in the Orders. This rule would remove Federal restrictions on harvest methods that currently apply to hunters on more than 22,000,000 acres of NPS-administered land.

In addition to allowing for State hunting and trapping opportunities, this rule would comply with the direction in Secretary's Order 3356 to more closely align NPS management of wildlife with that of the State. Section 4.d. of Secretary's Order 3356 requires the NPS to work cooperatively with State wildlife agencies to ensure that hunting regulations for NPS lands and waters complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable. As stated above, this rule more closely aligns with Federal law by aligning hunting opportunities in national preserves with hunting opportunities allowed by the State of Alaska on surrounding lands, ensuring State law applies inside the preserves.

7. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting creates a public safety hazard. Commenters noted that bait stations are often placed near roads and trails without proper signage which further increases the public safety risk and the risk of bears being taken in defense of life or property.

NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges that negative human-bear interactions occur throughout the State. It is difficult to determine, however, which if any such interactions are attributable to bears obtaining food rewards specifically from bear baiting. That said, the NPS recognizes that some bears that are attracted to bait stations, but not harvested, could pose a threat to public safety. Further, such bears may be more prone to being taken in defense of life or property. The NPS also recognizes that bears occur throughout Alaska and that people engaging in outdoor activities on NPS lands may encounter them. Adverse human-bear interactions are rare, but the consequences of such interactions can be severe (serious injury or death).

Bear baiting in national preserves would occur in the midst of nearly 20 million acres of very sparsely populated and remote areas, with few visitor facilities or services on site, if any. Human-bear interactions from bear baiting are likely to be rare—except for hunters seeking bears—both due to the lack of observed bear conditioning to associate bait stations with humans and the relatively few people in such remote areas to interact with bears. The State registers thousands of black bear bait stations yearly, and has done so for many years, but to date, it and other states which allow this practice have not detected problems that can be directly attributed to bear baiting. See 2014 State Comments, Att., at p. 14. The State also noted that “[e]stablishing, maintaining and cleaning up bear bait stations involves significant labor and materials and is typically conducted off of road or trail systems. All but one preserve in Alaska is many miles from the road system and hunters are not likely to use those areas for this use due to the extra cost and effort involved when easier to access locations are available.” 2018 State Comments, Att. B, at p. 54.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulations for bear bait stations will serve to mitigate risk to public safety, as they include requirements for site registration, signage, site cleanup and removal, and minimum distances from maintained roads, trails, houses, businesses and developed recreational facilities. The NPS will work with the State to take actions to sustain and improve compliance with these risk-mitigation regulations and will attempt to address any site-specific issues related to bear baiting through the Alaska Board of Game, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. ANILCA continues to provide the ability to enact specific closures if necessary in the future.

The NPS recognizes that, even with safety measures in place, the practice of bear baiting could increase the frequency of adverse human-bear interactions for visitors to national preserves. The EA observes that, “[b]y design, baiting of bears alters their behavior to increase their predictability and facilitate harvest.” EA, Sec. 3.2.2. Herrero (2002:41-44) referred to bears that become used to people through regular contact as “habituated” bears, and noted that if such bears also obtain food rewards, such as garbage that they associate with people, they can become “food conditioned.” Habituated and food conditioned bears are more likely to become a nuisance and be taken in defense of life or property, and they pose an elevated public safety risk. Herrero (1970, 1976, 2002).

However, bear baiting differs in that bears do not necessarily associate baits with humans, and thus may not become food conditioned or habituated, as defined by Herrero (2002). Paquet (1991:2), cited in Hristienko and McDonald (2007) reported that bears exposed to bait in Manitoba did not become nuisance animals. Similarly, in its decades of experience, the State has found “no evidence to support the claim that use of bait leads to food conditioned bears. Instead all information indicates just the opposite, which is that in areas where bear baiting is allowed there are fewer Defense of Life and Property (DLP) and agency kills.” 2018 State Comments, Att. B, at pp. 52-53; see also 2014 State Comments, Att., at p. 10 (arguing against the claim that prohibiting bear baiting would reduce nuisance bears as “contrary to the observations of subsistence users, state wildlife biologists, and state law enforcement officers that baiting can help to reduce nuisance bear problems”).

ANILCA and the Organic Act provide for a variety of public uses in national preserves, and some of the uses inherently detract from others, for example flightseeing and backcountry camping in designated wilderness. In these and many other cases, the NPS must exercise its discretion in managing competing authorized or mandated uses. Here, considering that habituation and safety issues related to bear baiting are expected to be rare, and the authority the NPS has to enact local closures if and where necessary, the NPS is removing Federal prohibitions on the harvest methods that are the subject of this rule. This will allow the State to determine whether bear baiting is allowed within national preserves consistent with ANILCA, and will also ensure State mitigations for human-bear interactions can be employed.

8. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting is inconsistent with the NPS's efforts to educate visitors about the risks of feeding wildlife and the importance of securing food to prevent adverse human-bear interactions.

NPS Response: Consistent with NPS regulations that prohibit feeding wildlife, the NPS advises park visitors not to feed wildlife and to keep food and other attractants secure in order to avoid attracting bears. ANILCA allows sport hunting under State law, however, and State regulations allow individuals to take bears over bait in specific areas, some of which may be located within national preserves. If there is a tension between allowing bear baiting and prohibiting visitors from feeding bears, this is to be resolved in management considerations. The NPS's approach on this issue is informed by the Congressional mandate to allow sport hunting under State law. As stated above, the State has adopted regulations for bait stations to help prevent adverse human-bear interactions. Additionally, as noted in the EA, bear baiting differs from the act of feeding bears, in that bears do not necessarily associate baits with humans, Hristienko and McDonald (2007), and thus may not become food conditioned or habituated, Herrero (2002). Visitor feeding of bears, both in Alaska and elsewhere (such as Yellowstone National Park), has resulted in bears associating humans with food.

9. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting violates the Wilderness Act by degrading the untrammeled and undeveloped qualities of wilderness character.

NPS Response: State management practices, including bear baiting, are allowed by ANILCA in the national preserves, including within designated wilderness. As discussed in the EA, implementation of this rule would have a minimal adverse impact on the untrammeled quality of wilderness in small and scattered locations by intentionally altering wildlife behavior. In addition, the presence of bear bait stations and associated debris would temporarily, in such small and scattered locations, degrade the undeveloped quality of wilderness. Overall, due to the low level of additional take expected under the proposed action, and the large areas of designated wilderness in national parks and preserves in Alaska, wilderness character would continue to exist in a manner similar to current conditions in accordance with statutory requirements in ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.

Furthermore, ANILCA provides that designated wilderness is to be administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act except as otherwise expressly provided for by ANILCA. ANILCA includes several special provisions for wilderness areas in Alaska. These special provisions are referred to as “non-conforming” uses. Relevant to sport hunting, ANILCA requires the NPS to permit, subject to reasonable regulation to ensure compatibility, the establishment and use of temporary facilities and equipment directly and necessarily related to the taking of wildlife. 16 U.S.C. 3204(a). The establishment and use of bait stations in wilderness areas for the purpose of taking bears under State laws and regulations qualifies as an allowed, non-conforming use under this provision. The State requirements pertaining to clean-up and prompt removal of bait stations are consistent with protection of the areas while allowing for the Congressionally-mandated activity of sport hunting under applicable State and Federal law and regulation within national preserves.

For these reasons, although bear baiting has minimal adverse impacts to wilderness character in small and scattered locations, this rule would not impair wilderness character and would ensure compliance with both ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.

10. Comment: Some commenters stated available data are inadequate to evaluate the impact of liberalized hunting regulations on predators or prey. Some stated the proposed rule disregards scientific recommendations and conclusions made to and by the NPS through the public consultation process for the 2015 rule.

NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that data necessary to evaluate potential impacts of hunting on predators and their prey are difficult and costly to obtain. Neither the NPS nor the State of Alaska consistently collect population-level abundance or demographic data for black bears, brown bears, or wolves in GMUs that overlap with national preserves. Rather, the NPS typically evaluates historical harvest data, often in the context of evaluating proposals submitted to the Alaska Board of Game, to determine if significant impacts on predator populations are likely. Similarly, in preparing the EA, the NPS analyzed harvest data provided by the State for black bears, brown bears, and wolves in GMUs overlapping national preserves. National preserves composed less than 11% of the land area of those GMUs, so hunting regulations in each GMU were largely unconstrained by the 2015 Rule or prior restrictions imposed by the NPS. Based in part on harvest data from 2012-2016 and consideration of potential additional harvest under current State regulations allowed by this rule, the NPS determined that, in general, meaningful population-level impacts on black bears, brown bears, or wolves are unlikely. The NPS will continue to work with the State to obtain and analyze harvest and population data, with particular attention to the most easily accessible areas. The NPS retains the authority under ANILCA to designate areas and periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed in national preserves for purposes of protecting wildlife.

In making its determinations, the NPS did not disregard scientific recommendations or conclusions arising from the public consultation process for the 2015 Rule. The 2015 Rule was based upon “the NPS legal and policy framework[.]” 80 FR 64328 (Frequently Asked Questions section). The NPS evaluated predator harvest and its influence on predator-prey systems in the context of population-level ( i.e., GMU-scale) impacts rather than localized impacts. See EA, Sec. 3.2.2. Further, the overall conclusion in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the EA supporting the current rule—a determination that the proposed action will not result in significant adverse impacts—is consistent with NPS statements made in the Finding of No Significant Impact for the 2015 Rule, which noted how neither of its alternatives was “likely to have a significant effect on park resources.”

The NPS reached its conclusions in the EA and FONSI that support the current rule by evaluating the management implications of available scientific literature and other data, some of which is new information not used or available during the public consultation process for the 2015 rule. With regard to effects on wildlife, the 2014 EA stated, “[l]ocalized effects on individual animals, family groups, and packs may be substantial ( e.g., direct mortality, increased mortality risk due to loss of family or group members, and food conditioning).” The EA supporting the current rule reaches a similar conclusion relative to mortality risks; however, the effects were not found to be “substantial.” As documented in the EA, the NPS considered harvest data from 2012-2016 and determined that there is likely to be only a low level of additional take of predators from preserves under the proposed action.

With regard to impacts related to bear baiting, data not included in the 2015 Rule and EA, cited in Hristienko and McDonald (2007), suggest that, when managed correctly, there is no evidence to suggest that black bears exposed to baits are destined to become problem bears. See EA, Sec. 3.2.2. The EA supporting the current rule clarifies that food conditioned bears are those that become habituated to humans first, then learn to associate food with humans and thereby become a potential nuisance and public safety risk. Herrero (2002). Therefore, baiting that is conducted in a manner consistent with required mitigations ( e.g., signage, setback, cleanup) is unlikely to result in food conditioning.

The NPS acknowledges that several sources included in the 2014 EA are not used in the EA supporting the current rule. During its review of Boertje et al. (2012) for the current rule, the NPS determined the study does not apply as used in the 2014 EA because that study included impacts of targeted wolf control actions on the nutritional status and distribution of caribou. Such actions contrast with the practices that would be allowed under this rule, which are intended to expand hunting opportunities in preserves rather than to reduce predator populations.

Commenters also pointed out that the following sources included in the 2014 EA are not included in the current EA: Barber-Meyer et al. (2008), Beschta and Ripple (2010), Evans et al. (2006), Ripple et al. (2014), and Ruth et al. (2004). These sources were cited once in the 2014 EA to support the conclusion that, when striving to maintain natural processes, some consideration of the effects of designed management perturbations on an entire suite of species, their interactions, trophic cascades, and system stability is necessary. The NPS acknowledges and has considered these concepts, but based on the entirety of the information reviewed during the EA process, the NPS has determined that population-level effects that would alter the natural processes listed are unlikely. The NPS will continue to work with the State to monitor harvest and, where practicable, status of predator and prey populations, and retains the authority under ANILCA to designate areas and periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed.

The NPS is removing paragraphs (f) and (g) of 36 CFR 13.42. Paragraph (f) states that State of Alaska management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park areas if they are related to predator reduction efforts, which are defined as efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. Removing this provision will expand harvest opportunities, complement regulations on lands and waters within and surrounding national preserves, and defer to the State in regard to fish and wildlife management, which is consistent with the NPS Organic Act, ANILCA, and 43 CFR part 24. This provision has not been utilized by the NPS since it was promulgated in 2015 and the NPS believes that removing it will help provide regulatory certainty to park users about what hunting practices are or are not allowed in national preserves.

Paragraph (g) sets forth a table of prohibited methods of taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska. Most of these prohibited methods are also prohibited by the State of Alaska. Some of them, however, conflict with authorizations by the State of Alaska as explained above.

The NPS believes that removing paragraphs (f) and (g) is consistent with Congressional direction for the management of Alaska preserves and will better implement the policy direction announced in Secretary's Orders 3347 and 3356 by increasing hunting opportunities in national preserves and promoting consistency between Federal regulations and State wildlife harvest regulations. In addition, this rule removes the definitions of “Big game”, “Cub bear”, “Fur animal”, and “Furbearer” from § 13.1 because those terms are only used in paragraphs (f) and (g).

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is significant because it will raise novel legal or policy issues.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Enabling regulations are considered deregulatory under guidance implementing E.O. 13771 (M-17-21). This rule would remove prohibitions on certain methods of taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska, thereby enabling those activities where they are allowed by State law.

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This certification is based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed Revisions to Sport Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves in Alaska” which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

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

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

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

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

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

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of federally administered lands and waters, and seeks to align Federal and state regulations on lands and waters within and surrounding the preserves. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

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

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

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

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that this rule may have substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. The NPS invited Alaska Native tribes and corporations to consult on the proposed rule and has consulted with those tribes and corporations that have requested consultation.

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

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The NPS prepared the EA and determined that a detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the NPS reached the FONSI. The EA and FONSI are available online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import provisions promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and Orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

EPA is finalizing a SNUR under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for chemical substances which were the subject of PMNs P-16-92, P-17-346, P-17-347/348/349/350/351/352, P-17-395, P-18-35, P-18-103, P-18-155/156, P-18-286, P-18-392, P-19-29, and P-19-62. These SNURs require persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

Previously, in the Federal Register of August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40371) (FRL-9997-73), EPA proposed a SNUR for these chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. More information on the specific chemical substances subject to this final rule can be found in the Federal Register documents proposing the SNUR. The record for the SNUR was established in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0442. That docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing the proposed and final rules, public comments submitted for the rule, and EPA's responses to public comments received on the proposed rule.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.

General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same significant new use notice (SNUN) requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use under the conditions of use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register , a statement of EPA's findings.

TSCA section 5(a)(2) states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors. In determining what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, and potential human exposures and environmental releases that may be associated with the conditions of use of the substances, in the context of the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit. During its review of these chemicals, EPA identified certain conditions of use that are not intended by the submitters, but reasonably foreseen to occur. EPA is proposing to designate those reasonably foreseen conditions of use as significant new uses.

EPA received public comments from three identifying entities on the proposed rule. The Agency's responses are described in a separate Response to Public Comments document contained in the public docket for this rule, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0442.

EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In Unit IV of the August 14, 2019 proposed rule, EPA provided the following information for each chemical substance:

• PMN number.

• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as confidential business information (CBI)).

• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).

• Basis for the SNUR.

• Potentially Useful Information. This is information identified by EPA that would help characterize the potential health and/or environmental effects of the chemical substance if a manufacturer or processor is considering submitting a SNUN for a significant new use designated by the SNUR.

• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of these rules.

The regulatory text section of these rules specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits and other uses designated in the rules, may be claimed as CBI.

The chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs completed premanufacture review. In addition to those conditions of use intended by the submitter, EPA has identified certain other reasonably foreseen conditions of use. EPA has preliminarily determined that the chemicals under their intended conditions of use are not likely to present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has not assessed risks associated with the reasonably foreseen conditions of use for these chemicals. As such, EPA is designating these reasonably foreseen conditions of use and/or other potential circumstances of use as significant new uses. As a result, before any of those uses may occur, they must first go through a separate, subsequent EPA review and determination process associated with a SNUN.

During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs and as further discussed in Unit IV. of the August 14, 2019 proposed rule, EPA identified certain reasonably foreseen conditions of use and/or other circumstances different from the intended conditions of use identified in the PMNs and determined that those changes could result in changes in the type or form of exposure to the chemical substances and/or increased exposures to the chemical substances and/or changes in the reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of the chemical substances.

EPA is issuing these SNURs because the Agency wants:

• To receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

• To have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

• To be obligated to make a determination under TSCA section 5(a)(3) regarding the use described in the SNUN, under the conditions of use. The Agency will either determine under section 5(a)(3)(C) that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant by the Administrator under the conditions of use, or make a determination under section 5(a)(3)(A) or (B) and take the required regulatory action associated with the determination, before manufacture or processing for the significant new use of the chemical substance can occur.

Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.

EPA designated August 14, 2019 (the date of web posting of the proposed rule) as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. The objective of EPA's approach has been to ensure that a person could not defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the final rule.

In the unlikely event that a person began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of August 14, 2019, that person will have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, that person would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and has taken such actions as are required with that determination.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require development of any particular new information ( e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: If a person is required to submit information for a chemical substance pursuant to a rule, Order or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603), then TSCA section 5(b)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 2604(b)(1)(A)) requires such information to be submitted to EPA at the time of submission of the SNUN.

In the absence of a rule, Order, or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. Unit IV. of the August 14, 2019 proposed rule lists potentially useful information for all SNURs listed here. Descriptions are provided for informational purposes. The potentially useful information identified in Unit IV. of the proposed rule will be useful to EPA's evaluation in the event that someone submits a SNUN for the significant new use. Companies who are considering submitting a SNUN are encouraged, but not required, to develop the information on the substance.

EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency. Furthermore, pursuant to TSCA section 4(h), which pertains to reduction of testing in vertebrate animals, EPA encourages consultation with the Agency on the use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs), if available, to generate the recommended test data. EPA encourages dialog with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).

The potentially useful information described in Unit IV. of the proposed rule may not be the only means of providing information to evaluate the chemical substance associated with the significant new uses. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f). EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

SNUN submitters should provide detailed information on the following:

• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at 40 CFR 721.1725(b)(1).

Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance and must identify the specific use for which it intends to manufacture or process the chemical substance. If EPA concludes that the person has shown a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance, EPA will tell the person whether the use identified in the bona fide submission would be a significant new use under the rule. Since most of the chemical identities of the chemical substances subject to these SNURs are also CBI, manufacturers and processors can combine the bona fide submission under the procedure in 40 CFR 721.1725(b)(1) with that under 40 CFR 721.11 into a single step.

If EPA determines that the use identified in the bona fide submission would not be a significant new use, i.e., the use does not meet the criteria specified in the rule for a significant new use, that person can manufacture or process the chemical substance so long as the significant new use trigger is not met. In the case of a production volume trigger, this means that the aggregate annual production volume does not exceed that identified in the bona fide submission to EPA. Because of confidentiality concerns, EPA does not typically disclose the actual production volume that constitutes the use trigger. Thus, if the person later intends to exceed that volume, a new bona fide submission would be necessary to determine whether that higher volume would be a significant new use.

According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0442.

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

This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

According to the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this action. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

The information collection activities in this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including using automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

Pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the final rule as a “significant new use.” Because these uses are “new,” based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. A SNUR requires that any person who intends to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN. EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a small number of notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs received was seven in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2013, 13 in FY2014, six in FY2015, 10 in FY2016, 14 in FY2017, and 18 in FY2018 and only a fraction of these were from small businesses. In addition, the Agency currently offers relief to qualifying small businesses by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $16,000 to $2,800. This lower fee reduces the total reporting and recordkeeping of cost of submitting a SNUN to about $10,116 for qualifying small firms. Therefore, the potential economic impacts of complying with this SNUR are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published in the Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its general determination that final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

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

This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Pursuant to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

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

On September 5, 2019, Oregon submitted a revised regulation to the EPA for approval into the Oregon SIP. On February 7, 2020, we proposed to approve the submitted changes (85 FR 7262). The reasons for our proposed approval were stated in the proposed rule and will not be re-stated here.

The public comment period for our proposed action ended on March 9, 2020. We received one comment, submitted anonymously, which generally supported the proposed action. The commenter also expressed the opinion that environmental well-being ought to take on more significance in government policy decisions. The EPA has reviewed the comment and we consider the comment to be outside the scope of this action or a generalized critique of the EPA. We do not consider this comment to be adverse to this action. The comment lacks the required specificity to the proposed SIP revision and the relevant requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110. Moreover, the comment does not address a specific regulation or provision in question or recommend a different action on the SIP submission from what “we” proposed. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed. The full text of the comment is in the docket for this action.

The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference into the Oregon SIP, the submitted change to OAR Chapter 340, Division 236 Emission Standards for Specific Industries, Section 0010 Definitions, State effective July 19, 2019. The EPA is also approving the corrected typographical errors as a “housekeeping” exercise.

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of Oregon Administrative Rules as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 10, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

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

Compliance Dates

The compliance date, or the date by which the States must follow the rule, will be August 10, 2020 except, as noted below:

• Review and adjustment of child support orders [45 CFR 303.8(b)(7)(ii)]: For those States that consider incarceration to be voluntary unemployment, this final rule will delay the compliance date for sending notices [45 CFR 303.8(b)(7)(ii)] to 1 year after completion of the first quadrennial review of the State's guidelines that commences on or after December 21, 2017.

• Annual collection fee for individuals not receiving title IV-A assistance [45 CFR 302.33(e)]: The compliance date is October 1, 2018 unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that State legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) is required for a State to meet the requirements in section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 654(6)(B)(ii)]. In such a case, the State shall not be regarded as failing to meet such requirements before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after February 9, 2018. For the purposes of determining this date, for States with a 2-year legislative session, each year of the session is deemed to be a separate regular session of the State legislature.

• Quarterly wage and unemployment compensation claims reporting to the National Directory of New Hires [45 CFR 303.108(c)]: The compliance date for reporting quarterly wage information is 1 year after the publication of the final rule. However, if State law revisions are needed, the compliance date is the first day of the second calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after July 9, 2020.

• Functional requirements for computerized support enforcement systems in operation by October 1, 2000 [45 CFR 307.11(c)(3)(i) and(ii)]: The compliance date for system enhancements to add Social Security Retirement (SSR) with concurrent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to prevent garnishment of these funds from the noncustodial parent's financial account will be February 4, 2021.

This final rule is published under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by section 1102 of the Social Security Act (Act) [42 U.S.C. 1302]. Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, as may be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions for which the Secretary is responsible under the Act. Additionally, the Secretary has authority under section 452(a)(1) of the Act [42 U.S.C. 652(a)(1)], through a designee, to “establish such standards for State programs for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child support . . . as [the designee] determines to be necessary to assure that such programs will be effective.” Rules promulgated under section 452(a)(1) must meet two conditions. First, the Secretary's designee must find that the rule meets one of the statutory objectives of “locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child support.” Second, the Secretary's designee must determine that the rule is necessary to “assure that such programs will be effective.”

Section 454(13) of the Act [42 U.S.C. 654(13)] requires a State plan to “provide that the State will comply with such other requirements and standards as the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining support orders, and collecting support payments and provide that information requests by parents who are residents of other States be treated with the same priority as requests by parents who are residents of the State submitting the plan.”

This final rule is published in accordance with the following sections of the Act: Section 451—Appropriation; section 452—Duties of the Secretary; section 453—Federal parent locator service; section 453A—State directory of new hires; section 454—State plan for child and spousal support; section 454A—Automated data processing; section 455—Payments to States; section 459—Consent by the United States to income withholding, garnishment, and similar proceedings for enforcement of child support and alimony obligations; section 460—Civil actions to enforce support obligations; section 464—Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds; section 466—Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement; and section 467—State guidelines for child support awards.

This final rule carries out the President's directives in Executive Orders (E.O.) 13771 and 13777. Executive Order 13777 requires each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force that shall evaluate existing regulations (as defined in section 4 of E.O. 13771) and make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. This rule eliminates identified regulatory requirements that are outdated and unnecessary. Additionally, this regulation makes a few technical amendments and needed policy adjustments.

This Technical Corrections final rule addresses several updates we will discuss in Section III, and the three substantive changes mentioned here. First, OCSE is amending the compliance date for Review and adjustment of child support orders in § 303.8(b)(7)(ii). The changes addressed in this rule, makes a technical change, that will allow those States that consider incarceration to be voluntary unemployment additional time to comply with the FEM final rule.

Second, on February 9, 2018, the President signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115-123. Section 53117 of Public Law 115-123, Modernizing child support enforcement fees, amends section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act to increase the annual collection fee from $25 to $35 for services provided by the State child support agency to individuals not receiving title IV-A assistance, i.e., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The law also revises the amount from $500 to $550 that the State must collect and disburse to the family before imposing the fee each Federal fiscal year. This final rule codifies these statutory requirements.

Finally, to obtain more timely National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) data, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is amending § 303.108(c) to reduce the timeframe to report wage information to the NDNH from the end of the fourth month following the reporting period to the end of the second month following the reporting period. This is a change from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, due to recommendations in comments received on the proposed rule, and is outlined in the response to comments under Section III.

The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in the final rule and, where appropriate, how these provisions differ from what was initially included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2018 (83 FR 64803 through 64807). The regulatory provisions included in this final rule are discussed by section, and includes the rationale when changes from the NPRM were necessary.

OCSE received 43 sets of comments from States, the Department of Labor, workforce agencies, and other interested entities. We posted 30 sets of comments on www.regulations.gov; 11 comments were duplicate responses (when the same commenter submitted the same response more than once or via alternate methods e.g., mail and online), and 2 comments were not posted because they were outside of the scope of the NPRM. The posted comments were from the following groups: 21 State child support agencies, 3 national child support organizations, 5 State workforce agencies, and 1 national workforce agency.

Generally, the comments received on the NPRM were in agreement or support of the proposed changes. However, there were comments that sought further clarification or addressed concerns with the proposed changes. Therefore, in this section, OCSE will discuss those comments seeking clarification or addressing specific concerns. In drafting the final rule, OCSE closely reviewed the comments and made a number of adjustments in response to those comments. Additionally, some provisions did not receive any comment. Immediately following the Summary Description for each provision, OCSE includes the Response to Comments and provides the rationale for any changes made to the proposed rule.

OCSE proposed to revise 45 CFR 302.33(e) because section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act, on which it is based, was amended by Section 53117 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115-123, Modernizing Child Support Enforcement Fees. The $25 annual fee was increased to $35 by this statutory amendment. In addition, this amendment changed the amount the State must collect and disburse to the family each year before imposing and collecting the annual fee which was changed from $500 to $550. OCSE received four comments in support of this provision.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, 45 CFR 302.33(e) is adopted as proposed.

This section has been added to the final rule to address a technical correction needed in the regulations in section 45 CFR 302.51(a)(5), regarding the corresponding change made to § 302.33(e) which updates the annual fee from $25 to $35 based on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. We are removing “$25” and replacing it with “$35” to update the annual fee amount. This change was not proposed in the NPRM and therefore no comments were received.

This section has been added to the final rule to address a technical correction needed in the regulations in section 45 CFR 303.7(f), regarding the corresponding change made to § 302.33(e) which updates the annual fee from $25 to $35 based on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. We are removing “$25” and replacing it with “$35” to update the annual fee amount. This change was not proposed in the NPRM and therefore no comments were received.

OCSE proposed to revise 45 CFR 303.11(b)(9)(ii) to allow case closure when the noncustodial parent is also receiving concurrent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Retirement (SSR) benefits. The rationale for closing concurrent SSI/Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) cases applies equally to concurrent SSI/SSR cases because the noncustodial parent meets the low-income means-tested criteria for the SSI program. The concurrent SSI/SSR noncustodial parent receives no more income than a SSI/SSDI recipient. SSDI and SSR benefits are related in that SSR benefits take the place of SSDI when an individual reaches retirement age. Additionally, this provision remains optional, and provides States with the flexibility to close the case when deemed appropriate by the State. OCSE received nine comments in support of this provision. Additionally, OCSE received two comments suggesting that the case closure code be broadened to include other means tested programs and one commenter asked if the case closure criteria is still optional.

Comment: One commenter agreed with the proposed provision, and suggested that OCSE broaden this closure code to include any case where the noncustodial parent's only source of income is a means-tested income program equal to or less than if the noncustodial parent qualified for SSI. This commenter stated the rationale would be the same and would not lead to some cases being unable to close due to an unequal treatment of participants.

Response: OCSE understands that there are other income categories that may seem related, however, this case closure provision is specific to noncustodial parents who receive SSI payments.

Comment: One commenter suggested that Social Security Survivor's benefits should be included ahead of including Social Security Retirement and believed this should be added to this criteria.

Response: OCSE disagrees. We are including SSR as a technical correction to this provision because of its close association with SSDI, as described here and under § 307.11. Considering any other benefits at this time is outside the scope of the regulation. As previously stated, a recipient receives concurrent SSI and either SSDI or SSR benefits under title II of the Act when the disabled noncustodial parent qualifies for the means-tested SSI benefits on the basis of his or her income and assets, but also qualifies for the SSDI or SSR benefits. In these cases, the Social Security Administration pays a combination of benefits up to the SSI benefit level. Therefore, a recipient who receives a concurrent SSI/SSDI or SSI/SSR benefit receives no additional money if they transition from a SSDI benefit to a SSR benefit because the recipient reached the appropriate retirement age. As such, only those cases that the State deems appropriate to close under § 303.11(b)(9)(ii) may be considered.

Comment: One commenter asked if this case closure criteria is still optional.

Response: Yes. This case closure criterion remains optional. The IV-D agency should review those cases where the noncustodial parent is a recipient of SSI to determine on a case-by-case basis if it is appropriate to continue to enforce obligations for child support when other forms of income may be available or to close the case.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, and considering the comments received, OCSE finalizes 45 CFR 303.11(b)(9)(ii) as proposed.

OCSE proposed to remove 45 CFR 303.71, “Requests for full collection services by the Secretary of the Treasury.” Due to the low number of cases currently being referred, and the availability of other more effective enforcement procedures, OCSE is removing this provision. States have not submitted any new cases for this enforcement procedure since 2013. Since the inception of this provision, we have made a number of more effective enforcement procedures available to States. Given that States are no longer widely using this enforcement tool, we are streamlining the regulations by removing this provision. However, this provision is statutory, therefore the removal of § 303.71 will not impact a State's ability to use this procedure, pursuant to section 452(b) of the Act [42 U.S.C. 652(b)], if it so chooses. Five commenters agreed with the provision and two commenters agreed with the provision and requested that OCSE publish guidance.

Comment: Two commenters agreed with the proposed provision, and suggested publication of guidance to clarify when States can use this enforcement action.

Response: States may contact scollections@acf.hhs.gov for guidance if they elect to use this provision.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, and considering the comments received, OCSE removes 45 CFR 303.71 as proposed.

OCSE proposed to remove 45 CFR 303.73, “Applications to use the courts of the United States to enforce court orders,” because it is no longer necessary. As stated in the NPRM, this provision involves a State seeking to use the Federal courts to enforce a child support order against an absent parent in another State, by applying to the Secretary for permission to use a United States district court for such purpose based on instructions issued by OCSE. This provision, originally promulgated at 45 CFR 302.72 in 1975, was needed to enforce interstate orders. Since then, the “Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act,” enacted on September 29, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-183), amended section 466(f) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 666, requiring all States to enact the 2008 amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act “officially adopted as of September 30, 2008 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws” (referred to as UIFSA 2008). UIFSA 2008 makes the requirements in this provision obsolete since it establishes procedures for enforcing interstate orders.

Currently, all States are using UIFSA 2008, which defines a tribunal as a court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial entity authorized to establish, enforce, or modify support orders or to determine parentage of a child. UIFSA also establishes rules/standards related to personal, subject matter, and long-arm jurisdiction, and establishes procedures on registering/enforcing foreign orders. However, OCSE acknowledges that there are still statutory provisions, in sections 452(a)(8) and 460 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 652(a)(8) and 660 that permit States to apply to the Secretary for permission to use a United States district court, and that Action Transmittal, issued February 6, 1976 (OCSE-AT-76-1) and revised May 12, 1976 (OCSE-AT-76-8), provides guidance for use of Federal courts and instructions to State IV-D agencies for preparation and submission of applications for certification to use a U.S. district court. OCSE received four comments in support of this proposed change.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSE removes 45 CFR 303.73 as proposed.

Section 453A(g)(2)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 653a(g)(2), requires that the State Directory of New Hires shall, on a quarterly basis, furnish to the NDNH information concerning the wages and unemployment compensation paid to individuals, by such dates, in such format, and containing such information as the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall specify in regulations. In accordance with 45 CFR 303.108(c), the State must report quarterly wage information no later than the end of the fourth month following the reporting period. However, the State reports quarterly unemployment compensation claim information no later than the end of the first month following the reporting period.

In the NPRM, OCSE proposed to change that provision to reduce the timeframe for reporting quarterly wage data, proposing that States report by the end of the first month following the reporting period. This would align the timeframes for when States must report wage and unemployment compensation claims data to the NDNH and help ensure State child support programs receive data more timely to locate parents and to establish and enforce support orders. However, the timeframe OCSE proposed garnered alternate suggestions from several commenters, including the Department of Labor, national labor organizations, State workforce agencies, and child support agencies. In addition, OCSE received two comments regarding compliance with implementing the requirement.

Comment: Several commenters expressed that the timeframe proposed by the NPRM does not provide sufficient time for the State to report quarterly wage data to the NDNH, based on the timeframe that employers must report to their States. Commenters stated that most States permit employers to file their wage reports up through the end of the month after a calendar quarter ends. This would mean that those States would need to provide the data to the NDNH on the same deadline. Commenters advised that States provide information that has actually been received and processed into their systems, and they are unable to do so with the same deadline as employers. As an alternative, several commenters suggested moving the deadline to report quarterly wage information to the NDNH to no sooner than the end of the second month after a calendar quarter.

Response: OCSE agrees with the alternative suggestion to change the reporting timeframe from the proposed end of the first month following the reporting period to the end of the second month following the reporting period. This will assist in streamlining the receipt of timely data to the NDNH and help State child support programs receive data to locate parents and to establish and enforce support orders in a more timely manner.

Comment: Some commenters suggested moving the deadline to report quarterly wage information to the NDNH to no sooner than the end of the third month after a calendar quarter.

Response: OCSE understands that, due to varying systems and employer deadlines, more time would be preferable. However, we received feedback from the Department of Labor and a national labor organization. They have provided an alternative to the proposed change in the NPRM. They suggested moving the deadline to report quarterly wage information to the NDNH to no later than the end of the second month after a calendar quarter, and OCSE agrees.

Comment: One commenter stated that there is concern regarding the significant system changes required to implement this provision, and stated that timely reporting may not always be possible because of potentially conflicting reporting requirements placed on child support agencies, State workforce development agencies, and employers and indicated that it is impossible to know if implementation was possible.

Response: OCSE understands the complexities of implementation. In the final rule, OCSE adopts a timeframe for reporting quarterly wage data to the NDNH different than the timeframe proposed in the NPRM, so that reporting is due by the end of the second month following the reporting period. In addition, States will have one year from the publication date of the final rule to comply with this change. For those States that will be required to change their State law, the compliance date will be the first day of the second calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after July 9, 2020.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the compliance date for implementation of the proposed changes to § 303.108 should be delayed, if a State needs to adopt changes in State law.

Response: OCSE agrees and has amended the compliance date from the NPRM. The compliance date of this provision in the final rule is 1 year after the publication of the final rule unless State law revisions are needed, in which case the compliance date is the first day of the second calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after July 9, 2020.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, and considering the comments received, OCSE finalizes § 303.108(c) by changing the timeframe for reporting quarterly wage data to the end of the second month following the reporting period, instead of the end of the first month as proposed.

This section has been added to the final rule to address a technical correction needed in the regulations in section 45 CFR 305.65(b), regarding definitions of part 305, which are found in § 305.1. We are removing “§ 305.2” and replacing it with “§ 305.1” to correct the section citation. This change was not proposed in the NPRM and therefore no comments were received.

OCSE proposed several revisions to § 307.11(c)(3) (i) and (ii). The first proposed change was a technical correction to the FEM final rule to include noncustodial parents who receive concurrent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Retirement (SSR) benefits under title II of the Act. In the FEM final rule, § 307.11(c)(3)(i) precludes garnishment of financial accounts for SSI recipients and concurrent SSI and SSDI recipients. Paragraph (c)(3)(ii) requires the State to make the SSI recipient whole if the State inappropriately garnishes the SSI benefit or concurrent SSI and SSDI benefits from the noncustodial parent's financial account and return these monies within 5 business days after the State becomes aware that the noncustodial parent was inappropriately garnished. In the NPRM for this rule, OCSE proposed amending these provisions to also apply these requirements to concurrent SSI and SSR benefits. As indicated in the NPRM, a disabled noncustodial parent qualifies for the means-tested SSI benefit on the basis of his or her income and assets, but also qualifies for the SSDI or SSR benefits because of employment credits. Individuals eligible to receive SSR may be eligible to receive SSI benefits when their SSR benefit is below SSI income and assets limits. Given that the noncustodial parent is eligible for concurrent benefits, meets the SSI means-tested criteria, and receives the same benefit amount as a SSI beneficiary, the state should not garnish the SSDI or the SSR portion from the noncustodial parent's financial account.

Second, OCSE proposed to amend § 307.11(c)(3)(i) and (ii) by adding “or through an income withholding order” as an additional method of garnishment of funds that would be subject to the requirements in these paragraphs, in addition to garnishment of funds from the noncustodial parent's financial account. OCSE received several comments regarding the proposed changes to § 307.11(c)(3)(i) and (ii). Most did not approve or agree with the proposed changes. However, OCSE also received comments that were in favor of the proposed changes. As stated in the FEM Final Rule, OCSE emphasizes that it makes no changes to its policy regarding recipients of title II benefits being subject to garnishment, as outlined in section 459(h)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(I). When a recipient receives title II benefits only, those benefits are subject to garnishment, as can be found in Dear Colleague Letters (DCL), and Policy Interpretation Questions (PIQ) (DCL-13-06; PIQ-09-01; DCL-00-103). Title II benefits, such as SSDI and SSR benefits, are considered remuneration from employment, and therefore, State or Tribal child support agencies are allowed to continue to garnish the benefits of child support directly from the Federal payor as authorized under section 459(h) of the Act. States can request Title II and Title XVI information through the State Verification and Exchange System (SVES) when they submit a locate request through their statewide system or the Child Support Portal.

Comment: Two commenters mentioned that the 5 days to return the funds received via income withholding, already sent to families is problematic.

Response: OCSE understands the concern regarding the timeframe by which funds must be returned, and it has made some adjustments in the final rule. The FEM final rule currently requires the State to refund any funds improperly garnished within 5 business days after the agency determines that SSI payments or concurrent SSI payments and SSDI benefits were incorrectly garnished from the noncustodial parent's financial account. This Technical Corrections final rule, amends paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) to include concurrent SSI and SSR recipients, but the number of days remains unchanged. In this final rule, OCSE adds a new optional component under paragraph (c)(3)(iii), which outlines that the State should return funds improperly garnished from an income withholding order in accordance with § 303.100(a)(8).

Comment: Three commenters requested that we not make the return of concurrent SSI and SSDI or SSR retroactive.

Response: This policy applies once the regulation is in effect and states have until February 4, 2021 to be compliant with § 307.11(c)(3)(i) and (ii). There is no requirement that the policy be applied retroactively. States will need to return funds improperly garnished from financial accounts within 5 business days after determining the payments were incorrectly garnished. However, if those funds were from an income withholding order, the State should return funds improperly garnished in accordance with § 303.100(a)(8) for States adopting § 307.11(c)(3)(iii).

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, and considering the comments received, OCSE finalizes the proposed revision to § 307.11(c)(3) with changes. OCSE amends paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) to include concurrent SSI and SSR recipients, however, the income withholding provision that was proposed has been modified in this final rule. Instead, OCSE adds, in the final rule, a new paragraph (c)(3)(iii) to include an optional component for States regarding noncustodial parents who receive concurrent SSI payments and either SSDI or SSR benefits under title II of the Act. For those noncustodial parents who are beneficiaries of SSI and concurrent SSDI or SSR, the State has the option to prevent garnishment of the concurrent SSI and SSDI or SSR payment through an income withholding order, and return funds incorrectly withheld in accordance with 45 CFR 303.100(a)(8) when deemed appropriate by the State. This optional provision will give States flexibility regarding concurrent SSI and SSDI or SSR benefits in cases involving noncustodial parents living at or below the subsistence level.

OCSE proposed removing § 307.30 because this section is outdated. OCSE no longer has the authority to provide enhanced Federal financial participation (FFP) funding at the 90 percent rate for statewide computerized support enforcement systems. The 90 percent enhanced funding was only available for expenditures for the planning, design, development, installation, or enhancement of a statewide computerized support enforcement system during the Federal fiscal years 1996 and 1997. OCSE received three comments in support of the proposed removal.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSE removes 45 CFR 307.30 as proposed.

OCSE proposed removing § 307.31 because this section is outdated. OCSE no longer has the authority to provide enhanced FFP funding at the 80 percent rate for statewide computerized support enforcement systems. The 80 percent enhanced funding was only available for expenditures for the planning, design, development, installation, or enhancement of a statewide computerized support enforcement system until September 30, 2001. OCSE received two comments in support of the proposed removal.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSE removes 45 CFR 307.31 as proposed.

OCSE proposed revising § 309.20(b) to remove an outdated address and add “Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement”. OCSE did not receive any comments on this provision.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSE removes 45 CFR 309.20 as proposed.

An Interim Final Rule effective December 26, 2014 (79 FR 75871), issued jointly by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), HHS, and a number of Federal agencies, implements “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards” (UAR). OCSE proposed revising the reference regarding OMB Circular A-133, which was superseded by the UAR effective December 26, 2014 (79 FR 75871), to the updated reference 45 CFR part 75, subpart F. OCSE did not receive any comments on this provision.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSE revises 45 CFR 309.75 as proposed.

OCSE proposed revising the reference in § 309.155(g) regarding OMB Circular A-87, which was superseded by the UAR effective December 26, 2014 (79 FR 75871) to the updated reference 45 CFR part 75, subpart E. OCSE did not receive any comments on this provision.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described in the proposed rule and above, OCSE revises 45 CFR 309.155 as proposed.

This section has been added to address a technical change needed in the regulations in § 309.170(a), regarding the OCSE-34 form and an update to the reporting timeframe. The form was previously designated as OCSE-34A, however it is now OCSE-34 and the reporting period for the first three quarters of the funding period has changed from 30 days to 45 days. This change was not proposed in the NPRM and therefore no comments were received.

Summary of Regulatory Changes: For the reasons described above, OCSE finalizes the technical change to 45 CFR 309.170(a) by replacing “OCSE-34A” with “OCSE-34,” and changing “30 days” to “45 days.”

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., provides that a Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA. All Departments are required by the PRA to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. For this final rule, States will need to resubmit the State plan preprint page 3.8-3, which is a PRA collection activity already covered under OMB Control number 0970-0017 as part of the “State Plan for Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.” This final rule imposes no additional information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); as a result, no new PRA approval needs to be sought or obtained.

There is one amended and one new optional provision as a result of these regulations, which are one-time enhancements to statewide child support systems. The description and total estimated burden for the changes are described in the chart below.

The systems enhancements above will add SSR to existing State systems functional requirements under § 307.11(c)(3)(i) and (ii) and, optionally, under § 307.11(c)(3)(iii). For the optional enhancement, we estimate half of the States, or approximately 27, will opt to implement. OCSE has not included a burden estimate in this rule to update the amount and collection threshold for the annual fee under § 302.33(e) because most States have already enacted this statutory change, since it was promulgated February 2018.

The Secretary certifies that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on State governments. State governments are not considered small entities under the Act.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OMB has determined that this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. This rule has been reviewed by OMB.

While there are some costs associated with these regulations, they are not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866. One economic impact of the final rule is associated with the change in the annual fee from $25 to $35 under 45 CFR 302.33(e). Based on data collected on the OCSE-34 Child Support Enforcement Program Quarterly Collection Report, OCSE estimates the impact of this change to be approximately $17 million, which represents a transfer from States and parents to the Federal Government. An area with associated Federal costs is modifying the child support statewide automated system for one-time system enhancements to accommodate amended and optional criteria to identify noncustodial parents receiving SSI and concurrent SSR. The following estimates were derived from our table in section IV under Paperwork Reduction Act. The total cost for the required systems enhancement is estimated at $540,000 and for the optional systems enhancement is $270,000. These costs are to modify statewide IV-D systems for the States at a cost of $100 an hour (with an assumption that 27 States will implement the optional provision). The total net cost to modify statewide systems in the final rule is $810,000, and the total Federal costs is $534,600. This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 because this rule results in no more than de minimis costs.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before promulgating any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $154 million. This rule does not impose any mandates on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector that will result in an annual expenditure of $154 million or more.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of lnformation and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a 'major rule' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. This regulation makes technical changes in the child support regulations. This regulation will not have an adverse impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.

Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism impact as defined in the Executive Order.

For the reasons discussed above, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR chapter III as follows:

This document announces that on March 31, 2020 OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Report and Order and Modification to Section 214 Authorizations, FCC 19-94, published at 84 FR 57629 on October 28, 2019. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rule. This document also removes § 51.914(f) of the Commission's rules, which advised that compliance was not required until OMB approval was obtained.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-0298. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 31, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 51.914(b), (e). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0298.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: Part 61, Tariffs (other than the Tariff Review Plan).

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,840 respondents; 5,605 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-50 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502 and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 196,677 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,444,800.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: In this collection, the Commission added § 51.914 in the Report and Order and Modification to Section 214 Authorizations which was adopted on September 26, 2019 and released on September 27, 2019. The Commission made access-stimulating local exchange carriers (LECs) financially responsible for the terminating tandem switching and transport service access charges associated with the delivery of traffic from an interexchange carrier (IXC) to the access-stimulating LEC end office or its functional equivalent. Access-stimulating LECs must provide notice of their assumption of financial responsibility to the Commission by filing a record of their access-stimulating status and acceptance of financial responsibility in the Commission's WC Docket No. 18-155, and must provide notice to any affected IXCs and intermediate access providers of the same, within 45 days of the effective date of the Order or within 45 days of commencing Access Stimulation, whichever is later, subject to the FCC obtaining approval of § 51.914(b) by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If, after approval of this requirement by OMB, access-stimulating LECs no longer engage in access stimulation, they must also file notice of that change in status with the Commission and with any affected IXCs and intermediate access providers, pursuant to § 51.914(e).

The information collected through carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable, as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

For the reason discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 51 as follows:

The Regional Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Regional Office monitors Atlantic herring fishery catch in each of the management areas based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. The regulations at 50 CFR 648.201 require that when Atlantic herring catch will reach 92 percent of the Management Area 3 sub-annual catch limit (sub-ACL), federally permitted vessels are prohibited from fishing for, possessing, transferring, receiving, landing, or selling more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip or calendar day in or from the specified management area.

The Regional Administrator has projected, based on vessel and dealer reports, and other available information, that the Atlantic herring fleet will have caught 92 percent of the Management Area 3 sub-ACL by June 6, 2020. Therefore, effective 00:01 hr local time, June 6, 2020, vessels may not fish for, possess, transfer, receive, land, or sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip or calendar day, in or from Management Area 3, through December 31, 2020. Vessels that have entered port before 00:01 hr local time, June 6, 2020, may land and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring from Area 3 from that trip. A vessel may transit through Area 3 with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring on board, provided all herring was caught outside of Area 3 and all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined by § 648.2.

Effective 00:01 hr local time, June 6, 2020, through 24:00 hr local time, December 31, 2020, federally permitted dealers may not purchase, possess, receive, sell, barter, trade or transfer more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip or calendar day from Area 3 from a vessel issued and holding a valid Federal herring permit, unless it is from a trip landed by a vessel that entered port before 00:01 hr local time, June 6, 2020.

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

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness in accordance with 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3). NMFS is required by Federal regulation to implement a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) Atlantic herring possession limit for Management Area 3 through the calendar year when 92 percent of the area quota is projected to be harvested. The 2020 Atlantic herring fishing year began on January 1, 2020. Data indicating the Atlantic herring fleet will have landed at least 92 percent of the 2020 sub-ACL allocated to Management Area 3 only recently became available. High-volume catch and landings in this fishery increase total catch relative to the sub-ACL quickly, especially in this fishing year where annual catch limits are unusually low. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the sub-ACL for Management Area 3 for this fishing year will likely be exceeded; thereby, undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. If sub-ACLs are exceeded, the excess must also be deducted from a future sub-ACL and would reduce future fishing opportunities.

In addition, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this process when these provisions were put in place. The public expects these actions to occur in a timely way consistent with the fishery management plan's objectives.

Background

The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) develops groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for two-year periods ( i.e., a biennium). NMFS published the final rule to implement harvest specifications and management measures for the 2019-2020 biennium for most species managed under the PCGFMP on December 12, 2018 (83 FR 63970). In general, the management measures set at the start of the biennial harvest specifications cycle help the various sectors of the fishery attain, but not exceed, the catch limits for each stock. The Council, in coordination with Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California, recommends adjustments to the management measures during the fishing year to achieve this goal. At its April 4-10, 2020 meeting, the Council recommended increased trip limits for limited entry fixed gear (LEFG) and open access (OA) fisheries for sablefish, lingcod, canary rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, nearshore rockfish, shelf rockfish, slope rockfish and flatfish.

Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries are managed using harvest specifications or limits ( e.g., overfishing limits [OFL], acceptable biological catch [ABC], annual catch limits [ACL] and harvest guidelines [HG]) recommended biennially by the Council and based on the best scientific information available at that time (50 CFR 660.60(b)). During development of the harvest specifications, the Council also recommends mitigation measures ( e.g., trip limits, area closures, and bag limits) that are meant to mitigate catch so as not to exceed the harvest specifications. The harvest specifications and mitigation measures developed for the 2019-2020 biennium used data through the 2017 fishing year. Each of the adjustments to mitigation measures discussed below are based on updated fisheries information that was unavailable when the analysis for the current harvest specifications was completed. As new fisheries data becomes available, adjustments to mitigation measures are projected to help harvesters achieve but not exceed the harvest limits. Measures implemented in this rule took into account fisheries data through the end of March, 2020.

The increased trip limits were requested by industry stakeholders and the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) to relieve some restrictions for non-trawl commercial fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, and to allow increased potential for utilization of available stocks where markets exist. The trip limit increases in this action are intended to expand access to certain fish stocks for the commercial non-trawl fleets during overall market declines and state restrictions that may limit fishing effort, and will help meet the current and rising demand of smaller domestic markets that are providing fresh fish to coastal communities and grocers. These increases to trip limits are intended to provide some relief to coastal fishing communities that have sustained severe disruptions in markets and decreases in tourist income due to state fishery closures.

Due to changes in markets and state restrictions, projections of catch through the end of the year were expected to remain low, given lower than expected effort and landings. For example, sablefish landings north of 36° N lat. were expected to reach only 40 to 70 percent of its non-trawl allocation under the existing trip limits through the end of the year, down from a projected 68 to 93 percent attainment through the end of the year, when 2020 trip limits were previously set at the end of 2019 (85 FR 250, January 3, 2020).

The Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, trips limits that provide economic benefits for fishery participants coastwide, but, primarily provide increased opportunity in California and Oregon, because Washington does not have a nearshore fishery. Trip limit changes north of 40°10′ N lat. for LEFG and OA Pacific groundfish fisheries for periods 3-6 ( i.e., May-December) are described in Tables 1 and 3. Trip limit changes south of 40°10′ N lat. for LEFG and OA Pacific groundfish fisheries for periods 3-6 ( i.e., May-December) are described in Tables 2 and 4.

The changes are expected to increase landings for most species. For example, for lingcod, the current coastwide estimate for LEFG and OA mortality is 212.5 mt. With these trip limit increases, total coastwide LEFG and OA landings of lingcod could increase to between 258 and 289 mt, and ex-vessel revenue could increase by a high of $537,000. The actual increase in landings will vary depending upon new entrants to the OA fishery, full attainment of trip limits, and access to healthy, stable markets. Harvest of these species' non-trawl allocations are projected to increase between 0.07 percent and 66.7 percent from expected 2020 catch under current regulations and loss of markets, depending on the stock. Harvest is not expected to approach or exceed 2020 catch limits through the end of the year (Table 5). Therefore, the changes in trip limits do not change projected impacts compared to the impacts evaluated in the 2019-2020 harvest specifications because the harvest specifications assume that the entire ACL is harvested.

The projected increase in landings is expected to occur with only minor increases in bycatch of non-target species, including yelloweye rockfish and cowcod. Modifications to the trip limits are projected to increase mortality of yelloweye rockfish, which is the last remaining rebuilding groundfish species, between 0.6-1.8 mt. Projected mortality of yelloweye rockfish due to the increased trip limits remains within the ACL, with less than 60 percent of the ACL projected to be harvested. While there is uncertainty in projections, projected impacts to the yelloweye rockfish mortality in the LEFG and OA fisheries could double from what is projected to occur and total impacts, when combined with all other sources, would still be below the ACL. Therefore, the changes in trip limits do not change projected impacts compared to the impacts evaluated in the 2019-2020 harvest specifications because the harvest specifications assume that the entire ACL is harvested.

This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best scientific information available, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.

This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection by contacting Gretchen Hanshew in NMFS West Coast Region (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above), or view at the NMFS West Coast Groundfish website: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The adjustments to management measures in this document ease restrictive trip limits on groundfish fisheries in Washington, Oregon and California. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes to trip limits were anticipated in the final rule for the 2019-2020 harvest specifications and management measures which published on December 12, 2018 (83 FR 63970).

At its April 2020 meeting, the Council recommended increases to the commercial trip limits be implemented as soon as possible so that the few harvesters that have viable markets can harvest available quotas that would otherwise be unharvested during a lull in fishing effort. Each of the adjustments to commercial management measures in this rule will create more harvest opportunity and allow fishermen to better attain species that are currently under attained without causing any additional impacts to the fishery that were not previously considered. Each of these recommended adjustments also rely on new catch data that were not available and thus not considered during the 2019-2020 biennial harvest specifications process. New catch information through March 2020 shows that harvest of these target species (sablefish, lingcod, canary rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, nearshore rockfish, shelf rockfish, slope rockfish and flatfish) has been much lower than anticipated due to diminished effort due to current market conditions expressed by industry and the Council. Without the actions taken in this final rule, fishermen that have access to markets might find it challenging to meet demand, while overall harvest will be much diminished from that projected during the 2019-2020 biennial harvest specifications process. Markets will likely take time to recover from current conditions. As they do, further action can be considered based on updated fishery data to keep harvest of these groundfish species below their respective management points ( i.e., HG, ACL, and non-trawl allocation), while providing fishing opportunity to meet market demands, through the end of the year.

These coastwide trip limit adjustments are anticipated to help offset economic losses to coastal communities from state fishery closures and stagnant markets. Coastal communities, across all three states, would normally be expecting approximately $68.3 million in economic contributions from recreational fishing between March-May 2020. Recreational fisheries closures or delayed seasons in all three states will severely limit the expected economic contributions that those fisheries provide to coastal communities. In commercial fisheries, effort is down due to market issues, and the changes in this final rule could provide up to an additional $2 million in ex-vessel revenue to harvesters, not including benefits to communities and associated businesses, from what was estimated without this action. Delaying implementation to allow for public comment would likely reduce the economic benefits to the commercial fishing industry and the businesses that rely on that industry because it is unlikely the new regulations would be published and could be implemented before the end of the calendar year. Therefore, providing a comment period for this action could significantly limit the economic benefits to the fishery, and would hamper the achievement of optimum yield from the affected fisheries.

Therefore, the NMFS finds reason to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in the Federal Register . The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries by increasing opportunity and relieving participants of the more restrictive trip limits. These adjustments were requested by the Council's advisory bodies, as well as members of industry during the Council's April 2020 meetings, and recommended unanimously by the Council. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established through a notice and comment rulemaking for 2019-2020 (83 FR 63970; December 12, 2018).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows: