The FEGLI Program is administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in accordance with Chapter 87 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code and our implementing regulations (title 5, part 87, and title 48, part 21, of the Code of Federal Regulations). The FEGLI enabling legislation was signed August 17, 1954. Also, Congress enacted Public Law 84-356, on August 11, 1955, to provide continuation of life insurance during retirement.

The FEGLI Program covers approximately 4,261,000 employees and annuitants enrolled in Basic insurance, including approximately 1,229,000 employees and annuitants with Option B insurance that has not reduced to zero, approximately 1,160,000 employees and annuitants enrolled in Option A insurance, and approximately 924,000 employees and annuitants enrolled in Option C insurance that has not reduced to zero.

The FEGLI statute establishes the basic rules for benefits, enrollment, and participation, and provides that OPM “shall specify the types of pay included in annual pay.” See 5 U.S.C. 8704(c). In accordance, OPM has promulgated regulations defining the “basic insurance amount” for all FEGLI Program enrollees. Further, the “basic insurance amount” is defined by law using the term “annual rate of basic pay.” See 5 U.S.C. 8701(c). For FEGLI Program purposes, the basic insurance amount applies to Basic and Option B insurance.

This final regulation clarifies what is considered annual basic pay for FEGLI Program purposes but does not change how the annual rate of basic pay is computed, provide additional enrollment or change opportunities, or make other changes not in the existing FEGLI Program regulations. The final rule makes this clear in the revised sections of part 870 by aligning the FEGLI Program and retirement regulations, and, in the process, eliminating certain outdated regulatory provisions on annual rates of basic pay. This final regulation also includes a change enacted under Public Law 114-315 requiring that retired and current judges for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims be considered employees for purposes of FEGLI.

On June 29, 2018, OPM published a proposed regulation (83 FR 30589) to clarify that annual basic pay for FEGLI includes any type of pay treated as basic pay for purposes of the retirement systems established under 5 U.S.C. chapters 83 and 84 consistent with applicable law or OPM regulation and to address the status of judges for the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims. OPM received no comments on the proposed rule. Accordingly, this final regulation adopts the proposed regulation with the changes pertaining to life insurance for Federal judges of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims referenced below.

The final regulation changes existing paragraphs 5 CFR 870.204(a)(1) and (a)(2) to clarify that basic pay for FEGLI purposes includes all payments that are retirement-creditable basic pay under 5 U.S.C. chapters 83 and 84. The final rule also deletes regulatory provisions that listed specific types of pay that are either obsolete or creditable as retirement basic pay. This includes revised paragraphs on locality pay and special pay supplements. These changes do not substantively affect pay that is creditable towards life insurance payment, but merely incorporate provisions that were previously contained in guidance into regulation through a reference to retirement law. This regulation codifies OPM's unwritten policy to consider pay that is creditable towards retirement as creditable towards life insurance payment.

The final regulation makes the required update at 5 CFR 870.101 to state that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is now the employing office for judges of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This replaces the prior employing office, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals.

Also, the final regulation clarifies existing paragraph 5 CFR 870.703(e)(1) concerning certain Federal judges by adding the words “a judge who retires under parts (i-vii)” and striking “one of the following.” It also adds 5 CFR 870.703(e)(1)(vii) concerning retired Federal judges to reflect the statutory change under Public Law 114-315. The change reflects that 38 U.S.C. 7296 is amended by section 202 of Public Law 114-315 to state that a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims who is retired is considered an employee under the FEGLI Program.

This rule clarifies the definition of annual rates of basic pay for the FEGLI Program and does not make substantive changes to its computation. It only affects the life insurance of a small number of federal employees and annuitants that are or have served as judges for the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims. The Court is authorized seven permanent active judges, and two additional judges, appointed for 15-year terms as part of a temporary expansion provision.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs 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). This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by OMB.

This final rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) because this final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

The Office of Personnel Management certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only affects a small number of Federal employees and annuitants.

We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3507(d); see 5 CFR part 1320) requires that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. OPM has determined this rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 outside of an already approved existing collection under OMB Control No: 3206-0230, Life Insurance Election.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 870 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2016 (81 FR 26485). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the Model 737 fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. The NPRM also proposed to provide alternative actions for cargo airplanes.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

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

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) supported the intent of the NPRM. Additional comments from NATCA are addressed below.

Airlines for America and the Cargo Airline Association, in consolidated comments (A4A/CAA), and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. A4A/CAA cited comments submitted by Boeing to Docket No. FAA-2012-0187 in which Boeing stated that the risk is “less than extremely improbable” and that Boeing does not believe that an unsafe condition exists. A4A/CAA noted that they consider the Boeing comments to be applicable to the airplane models in the NPRM. KLM stated that the NPRM does not clarify the necessity of additional actions beyond current requirements. KLM added that it understands that Boeing is not able to explain or substantiate the rationale behind the NPRM.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' request. The FAA notes that Boeing's comments were addressed in the supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) for Docket No. FAA 2012-0187 (80 FR 9400, February 23, 2015) in the comment response for “Request To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by Risk.” As explained in that comment response, in addition to examining average risk and total fleet risk, the FAA examines the individual flight risk on the worst reasonably anticipated flights. In general, the FAA issues ADs in cases where reasonably anticipated flights with preexisting failures (either due to latent failure conditions or allowable dispatch configurations) are vulnerable to a catastrophic event due to an additional foreseeable single failure condition. This is because the FAA considers operation of flights vulnerable to a potentially catastrophic single failure condition to be an excessive safety risk to the passengers on those flights. The FAA has determined that the current requirements, including airworthiness limitations and critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) do not adequately address the unsafe condition identified in this AD and therefore it is necessary to issue this final rule. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

A4A/CAA requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. A4A/CAA stated that the assumption of a single failure regardless of probability is inconsistent with 14 CFR part 25 regulatory requirements. A4A/CAA referred to the phrase “regardless of probability” associated with single failures. A4A/CAA acknowledged that the term is used with single failures in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.981-1C, 1 “Fuel Tank Ignition Source Prevention Guidelines,” but since that term does not appear in 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3), the commenter considered its use arbitrary, possibly introducing additional requirements not included in that section. A4A/CAA stated that the “worst reasonably anticipated flight” is a flight with a latent FQIS failure and a high-flammability tank, and this “latent plus one” failure—regardless of probability of a single failure—is not consistent with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3).

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA notes that the commenter's assertion about the intent of 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) is incorrect based on both the language of the rule and on the published rulemaking documents. The absence of a probabilistic qualifier in both the “from each single failure” clause and in the “from each single failure in combination with each latent failure not shown to be extremely remote” clause in 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) in fact means just that—there is no probabilistic qualifier intended by the regulation. The intent for single failures in these two scenarios to be considered regardless of probability of the single failure was explicitly stated in the NPRM for 14 CFR 25.981, as amended by amendment 25-102 (66 FR 23085, May 7, 2001) (“amendment 25-102”). That NPRM stated, in pertinent part, that it would also add a new paragraph (a)(3) to require that a safety analysis be performed to demonstrate that the presence of an ignition source in the fuel tank system could not result from “any single failure, from any single failure in combination with any latent failure condition not shown to be extremely remote, or from any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable.” These new requirements would define three scenarios that must be addressed in order to show compliance with the proposed paragraph (a)(3). “The first scenario is that any single failure, regardless of the probability of occurrence of the failure, must not cause an ignition source. The second scenario is that any single failure, regardless of the probability occurrence, in combination with any latent failure condition not shown to be at least extremely remote ( i.e., not shown to be extremely remote or extremely improbable), must not cause an ignition source. The third scenario is that any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable must not cause an ignition source.”

The preamble to the final rule for amendment 25-102 made a nearly identical statement, including the same uses of the phrase “regardless of probability.” The FAA has determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuance of this final rule as proposed. Further details and a description of the FAA's risk assessment can be found in responses to similar comments in a related SNPRM that addressed the same unsafe condition for Model 757 airplanes, in Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, and in the subsequently issued final rule, AD 2016-07-07, amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-07”). No change to this AD was made in response to these comments.

A4A/CAA requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on a lack of new data since the issuance of the FTFR rule (73 FR 42444, July 21, 2008). A4A/CAA referred to the FTFR rule and decision to not require flammability reductions means (FRM) for all-cargo airplanes, and the FAA's intent to gather additional data and consideration of further rulemaking if flammability of these airplanes is excessive. A4A/CAA stated that since the FTFR rule, no additional data has been publicly introduced that would support or justify the applicability of this rulemaking to all-cargo aircraft. A4A/CAA also referred to the FAA's response to comments in the preamble to the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, which documented the FAA's decision on applicability of FRM and cost estimates. A4A/CAA stated that the FAA response was misleading and not factual since manufacturers did not begin detailed designs to address the proposed unsafe condition until after the FTFR rule was published. A4A/CAA added that the FAA did not discuss other changes to the FQIS system in the FTFR rule.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA notes that the FTFR rule and FQIS ADs are two different issues with separate FAA actions. The intent of the FTFR rule was to provide an order of magnitude reduction in the rate of fuel tank explosions for the airplanes affected by that rule through adding a new airworthiness standard for the flammability of fuel tanks. The FAA notes that the FTFR rule was never intended to be a replacement for the issuance of ADs to address identified unsafe conditions. An unsafe condition due to the identified FQIS latent-plus-single failure issue in high-flammability fuel tanks was determined to exist during the Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88 AD Board held by the FAA in 2003 using the guidance in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, “SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria,” dated February 25, 2003, 2 for high-flammability fuel tanks, including the center fuel tank on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That same issue was not considered to be an unsafe condition in low-flammability wing fuel tanks based on that same policy memorandum. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

A4A/CAA requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM based on a lack of consistent design standards for FQIS wire separation. A4A/CAA assumed that the approved standard for the retrofit is a 2-inch wire separation minimum, which the commenter considered arbitrary and inconsistently applied. A4A/CAA reported that the amount of wiring capable of meeting that separation standard varies widely among airplane models. A4A/CAA also acknowledged that other separation methods were used in areas not meeting the 2-inch wire separation requirement.

The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. The degree of physical isolation of FQIS wiring from other wiring, whether provided by physical distance or barrier methods, that is necessary to eliminate the potential for hot shorts due to wiring faults is dependent on the materials used, the wire securing methods, and the possible types of wiring faults. The FAA relied on the manufacturer to assess the details of the design and to propose the appropriate isolation measures. While 2 inches of physical separation may appear to be an arbitrary number, it was the distance proposed by the manufacturer as appropriate for their design based on analysis of the design details. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

A4A/CAA requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. A4A/CAA noted that airplanes with FRM are not included in the applicability, and the NPRM would therefore not fully address the unsafe condition. A4A/CAA added that the distinction between high- and low-flammability exposure time fuel tanks as used in the NPRM is arbitrary. A4A/CAA stated that an arbitrary differentiation of high- versus low-flammability as decisional criteria for the need for corrective action does not take into account the actual probability of the impact of the difference in flammability on the potential of catastrophic failure. A4A/CAA also stated that allowing the proposed alternative actions for cargo airplanes does not fully address the unsafe condition in the NPRM. A4A/CAA referenced the FAA's response to comments in AD 2016-07-07 regarding this issue. The commenter summarized numerical analysis showing no significant difference in risk between high- and low-flammability fuel tanks. A4A/CAA concluded that the FAA's risk analysis is arbitrary and an unsafe condition does not exist.

The FAA disagrees with the assertion that the NPRM is arbitrary and inconsistent. The NPRM follows defined policy in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, and consistently applies the policy to several airplane models with similar unsafe conditions, similar to AD 2016-07-07. The FAA defined the difference between low- and high-flammability exposure time fuel tanks based on recommendations from the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Fuel Tank Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG). The preamble to the final rule for amendment 25-102, which amended 14 CFR 25.981, defined this difference as based upon comparison of “the safety record of center wing fuel tanks that, in certain airplanes, are heated by equipment located under the tank, and unheated fuel tanks located in the wing.” The FTHWG concluded that the safety record of fuel tanks located in the wings was adequate and that if the same level could be achieved in center wing fuel tanks, the overall safety objective would be achieved.

In the response to comments in the preamble to the final rule for AD 2016-07-07 referenced by the commenter, the FAA described why FRM or alternative actions for cargo airplanes provide an acceptable level of safety, even if they do not completely eliminate the non-compliance with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3).

The fuel tank explosion history for turbojet/turbofan powered transport airplanes fueled with kerosene type fuels, outside of maintenance activity, has consisted of explosions of tanks that (1) are not conventional aluminum wing tanks and (2) spend a considerable amount of their operating time empty. The service history of conventional aluminum wing tanks has been acceptable. The intent of the difference in decision criteria in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15 was intended to give credit for this satisfactory service experience, and to differentiate between tanks with a level of flammability similar to that of a conventional wing tank and those with a significantly higher level of flammability.

The numerical analysis provided by the commenter is inconsistent with the fuel tank explosion service history. There are at least three identifiable physics-based reasons for that inconsistency. First, low-flammability tanks on most types of airplanes are main tanks that are the last tanks used. During a large portion of their operating time, the systems and structural features that have the potential to be ignition sources in the event of a failure condition are covered with liquid fuel, and an ignition source, if it occurs, is likely to be submerged. When a potential ignition source in a main tank is uncovered, it is likely to be later in the flight when the tank is cool and no longer flammable. The commenter's analysis does not account for this significant effect. Second, the numerical analysis used by the commenter assumes that any given ignition source has a random occurrence in time at the estimated probability, and that, in order for an explosion to occur, that random occurrence of an ignition source needs to coincide with the tank being in a flammable state. In fact, many of the identified ignition threats do not simply occur briefly and then go away. Instead, a fault occurs that, until it is discovered and corrected, repeatedly creates an ignition source, and repeatedly tests whether flammable conditions exist.

Third, the flammability of low-flammability fuel tanks is typically dependent on weather, and a low-flammability fuel tank may operate for months without ever becoming flammable. This is not true of most high-flammability fuel tanks, which typically have significant on-airplane heat sources driving their temperature. This factor can mean that, on some airplanes, an in-tank latent failure can occur and, after some period of time, be detected and corrected without the low-flammability tank ever having flammable conditions. The numerical analysis provided by the commenter does not account for these significant factors. The difference in likelihood of a failure that results in repeated ignition source events causing a tank explosion is not simply proportional to difference in the fleet average flammability of the tank for the reasons stated above. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

A4A/CAA requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. The commenter stated that the FAA did not properly analyze the fleet average flammability for the center wing tank on Model 737-700 airplanes. The commenter stated that the known U.S. registered 737-700 all-cargo fleet without FRM installed will be operated almost solely in the state of Alaska for the foreseeable future. A4A/CAA noted that the mean average ambient temperature in Alaska is much lower than that used in the FAA's analysis. The commenter added that the air conditioning packs in an all-cargo configuration generate significantly less heat transfer to the center wing tank during normal operations than during the normal operations assumed by the FAA's analysis. A4A/CAA concluded that these factors reduce the fleet average flammability exposure for the all-cargo Model 737-700 airplanes to the level of the main wing tanks, and therefore, the unsafe condition does not exist.

The FAA does not agree to withdraw the NPRM. More than 1,100 Model 737-700 airplanes have been produced. The FAA foresees that, as these airplanes are replaced in passenger service by newer airplanes, a significant portion of them will be converted to all-cargo service and will eventually fly throughout the U.S. and the world. Multiple cargo-conversion designs for these airplanes have been approved, and other conversion designs are in the approval process. The FAA does not agree to base its decision about whether an AD is necessary for these airplanes on a flammability analysis based solely on the initial cargo conversions currently being largely operated in Alaska.

The FAA also does not agree that a new analysis considering operation of only the initial cargo-converted airplanes would result in a determination that the center fuel tank of those airplanes has a level of flammability comparable to a wing tank of conventional aluminum construction, and that the center fuel tank on those airplanes could therefore legitimately be classified as a low-flammability fuel tank. In addition, the FAA considers the unsafe condition determination described in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, in the response to comments section under, “Request To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012): Unjustified by Risk,” to be applicable to these Model 737 airplanes.

AMES Continuing Airworthiness Management Organization (AMES CAMO) requested that the proposed AD be revised to exclude Boeing Business Jets operated under 14 CFR part 91. AMES CAMO noted that the proposed AD excludes airplanes modified by the nitrogen generation system (NGS) system, but the NGS is mandated only on commercial airplanes operating under 14 CFR part 121. AMES CAMO suggested the proposed AD should only apply to airplanes operating under 14 CFR part 121.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15 is applicable to large transport airplanes except those specifically excluded by the Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 88 regulation (in 14 CFR part 21). The FAA did not exclude non-air-carrier large transport airplanes from the other ADs determined to be necessary as a result of SFAR 88, and included non-air-carrier large transport airplanes in the FRM retrofit requirements added to 14 CFR part 125 in 2008. The unsafe condition addressed by this AD is applicable to Model 737 airplanes operated as business jets, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Boeing and All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that the NPRM be revised to make the alternative actions for cargo airplanes specified in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD applicable to all airplanes. Boeing asked that the FAA provide a technical justification why the actions in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD apply only to cargo airplanes. ANA asked that the actions in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be allowed for passenger airplanes not subject to the FTFR rule, suggesting this would provide more choices regarding how to comply with the proposed AD.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests. As discussed in the comment response in the SNPRM for Docket No. FAA-2012-0187, under the heading “Requests To Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 12506, March 1, 2012) Based on Applicability” the FAA does not consider the alternative action for cargo airplanes allowed by this AD to provide an adequate level of safety for passenger airplanes. The FAA is willing to accept a higher level of individual flight risk exposure for cargo flights that are not fail-safe due to the absence of passengers and the resulting significant reduction in occupant exposure on a cargo airplane versus a passenger airplane, and due to relatively low estimated individual flight risk that would exist on a cargo airplane after the corrective actions are taken. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

United Airlines (UAL) noted that the FRM required by 14 CFR 121.1117 will have been installed on all affected airplanes in passenger configuration by December 26, 2018. The FAA infers UAL is requesting that the FAA revise the proposed AD to exclude airplanes that are affected by 14 CFR 121.1117. In addition, UAL suggested that the FAA either delete paragraph (g) of the proposed AD or make paragraph (g) of the proposed AD applicable only to airplanes in a cargo configuration that do not have an FRM installed and non-U.S.-registered airplanes that do not have to comply with FRM requirements.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. There are other passenger-carrying airplanes operated under 14 CFR part 91 that are not required to install FRM. (The requirement to install FRM on all passenger-carrying airplanes operated by air carriers is in 14 CFR 121.1117.) The FAA notes that foreign air carriers may not have to comply with that requirement or similar requirements of their own civil aviation authority. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), for example, has chosen not to require FRM to be retrofitted to in-service airplanes. This AD is intended to require any Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series passenger airplane that does not have FRM, regardless of the rules under which it is operated, to address the FQIS latent-plus-one unsafe condition with a corrective action that fully complies with the FAA's airworthiness standards. This requirement fulfills the FAA's International Civil Aviation Organization to address unsafe conditions on all of the aircraft manufactured by the state of design, not just those aircraft whose operation is under the jurisdiction of the state of design. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

NATCA recommended that the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to clearly state that the required FQIS design changes must comply with the fail-safe requirements of 14 CFR 25.901(c), as amended by amendment 25-46 (43 FR 50597, October 30, 1978); and 14 CFR 25.981(a) and (b), as amended by amendment 25-102; NATCA added that these provisions are required by SFAR 88.

The FAA does not agree to change paragraph (g) of this AD. While the FAA agrees that modifications to comply with paragraph (g) of this AD should be required to comply with the referenced regulations, that requirement already exists in 14 CFR part 21. No change to this AD is necessary.

NATCA recommended that the FAA require design changes that eliminate unsafe FQIS failure conditions on all fuel tanks on the affected models, regardless of fuel tank location or the percentage of time the fuel tank is flammable. NATCA referred to four fuel tank explosions in low-flammability exposure time fuel tanks identified by the FAA during FTFR rulemaking. NATCA stated that neither FRM nor alternative actions for cargo airplanes ( e.g., BITE checks (checks of built-in test equipment) followed by applicable repairs before further flight and modification of the center fuel tank FQIS wiring within 60 months) would bring the airplane into full regulatory compliance. NATCA added that the combination of failures described in the NPRM meets the criteria for “known combinations” of failures that require corrective action in FAA Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has determined that according to Policy Memorandum ANM100-2003-112-15, the failure condition for the airplanes affected by this AD should not be classified as a “known combination.” While the FQIS design architecture is similar to that of the early Boeing Model 747 configuration that is suspected of contributing to the TWA Flight 800 fuel tank explosion, significant differences exist in the design of FQIS components and wire installations between the affected Boeing models and the early Model 747 airplanes such that the intent of the “known combinations” provision for low-flammability fuel tanks in the policy memorandum is not applicable. Therefore, this AD affects only the identified Boeing airplanes with high-flammability exposure time fuel tanks, as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA provided a detailed response to similar comments in the preamble of the final rule for AD 2016-07-07. The FAA has not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

NATCA recommended that the FAA require designs that comply with 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 25.981(a)(3) on all newly produced transport airplanes. NATCA stated that continuing to grant exemptions to 14 CFR 25.901(c), as amended by amendment 25-40 (42 FR 15042, March 17, 1977); and 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3), as amended by amendment 25-102; has allowed continued production of thousands of airplanes with this known unsafe condition.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The recommendation to require production airplanes to fully comply with 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3) is outside the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, the FAA has implemented requirements for all large transport airplanes produced after September 2010 to include flammability reduction methods for tanks that would otherwise be high-flammability fuel tanks. Boeing incorporated this change into the Model 737 series airplanes that are still in production and the FAA has excluded those models from the applicability of this AD. The FAA has not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Boeing requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised to state that an exemption is required to accomplish the specified actions. Boeing stated that the FAA has identified that the BITE procedure and wire separation design changes specified in the proposed AD are not sufficient for compliance to 14 CFR 25.981(a) at the FQIS level. Boeing stated that an exemption is therefore needed prior to approval of the related design change.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The BITE check is not a type design change or alteration, so no exemption from the airworthiness standards is required for that action. The design data approval of any partial wire separation modification would require an exemption. That exemption would be obtained by the party seeking approval of the alteration data, and no further exemption would be required for the party using that data to alter an aircraft. Obtaining such an exemption would be part of the certification process for such a change, so, the FAA does not find it necessary to include such information in paragraph (h) of this AD. In addition, some parties may choose to comply with the AD using a design change that fully complies with the airworthiness standards. The FAA also notes that the commenter appears to misunderstand why an exemption is needed for the required modification. The exemption is needed because, even with the modification, the FQIS does not comply with 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 14 CFR 25.981(a). The exemption does not authorize evaluation of a partial system for compliance with the system level requirement. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

AerSale stated that the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM only cites the requirements in 14 CFR 121.1117 to install FRM, but 14 CFR 121.1117 paragraph (d)(1) states that IMM, FRM, or FIMM may be installed. AerSale suggested that all IMM, FRM, or FIMM installations with the approval of the FAA Oversight Office would meet the requirements of 14 CFR 121.1117. The FAA infers AerSale is requesting that the proposed AD be revised to exclude airplanes on which IMM or FIMM has been installed.

The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA agrees that IMM provides a level of risk reduction at least as great as that provided by FRM. The FAA does not agree that airplanes should be excluded from paragraph (c) of this AD based on the installation of FIMM alone. FIMM is applicable to design changes only, and is intended to ensure that, if a fuel tank design change would otherwise have increased the flammability of a fuel tank, the associated FIMM would ensure that the flammability of that tank is not increased by the design change. Therefore, FIMM itself does not address the need for FRM for the original tank design. The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this AD to clarify that airplanes with an IMM approved by the FAA as compliant with certain regulations are excluded from this AD. This revision includes adding paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.

Boeing requested that paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD be revised to only require corrective actions if a nondispatchable fault code pertaining to the center wing tank is recorded (as opposed to any nondispatchable fault code being recorded). Boeing stated that all FQIS wire separation changes in the proposed AD are limited to the center wing tank, therefore only built-in test equipment (BITE) check messages pertaining to the center wing tank are applicable to the proposed AD. In addition, Boeing stated that a final rule should be postponed until the FAA develops a list of “nondispatchable fault codes” in conjunction with Boeing.

The FAA agrees that the unsafe condition addressed by this AD is limited to the center wing tank. However, the FAA does not agree that the AD should be changed as proposed by Boeing. It is not clear to the FAA whether there may be FQIS BITE fault codes that are not clearly identified as related to the center wing tank but that may impact center tank circuits. Therefore, the FAA has determined that all nondispatchable fault codes recorded prior to the BITE check or as a result of the BITE check required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD must be addressed. Operators or Boeing may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD if they can provide sufficient data that a particular fault code does not pertain to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD.

Regarding the requirement to record and address fault codes read immediately prior to running the BITE check procedure, the FAA notes that the normal Boeing procedure for performing an FQIS BITE check is to first erase all of the existing fault codes, then perform the BITE check and troubleshoot any resulting new fault codes. For this AD, the FAA did not want any already stored fault codes to be potentially ignored due to erasure at the first step because some of the failures of concern can be intermittent. This AD therefore requires operators to record the existing codes before doing the BITE check, then do the BITE check and record the new codes that result from that BITE check, and then do the appropriate troubleshooting and corrective action for both sets of codes per the manufacturer's guidance. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Finally, the FAA does not agree to delay the final rule while Boeing proposes and obtains FAA agreement on a list of nondispatchable fault codes. The FAA requested service information from Boeing in 2016 to support the option for all-cargo airplanes on all of the Boeing models for which similar FQIS ADs were planned. Boeing chose at that time to develop service information only for the Model 747-400, 757, and 767 airplanes because at that time only those airplanes had affected cargo configuration for which Boeing was the design approval holder. The FAA agreed at that time to not require Boeing to develop a BITE check service bulletin for the Model 737 airplanes because Boeing had not yet developed a cargo conversion service bulletin or supplemental type certificate (STC) for the Model 737 airplanes. The FAA also considered that, because the BITE check instructions already existed in the Model 737 AMM, a BITE check service bulletin could be developed quickly at a later date if needed. In addition, the process for obtaining FAA agreement on a list of nondispatchable fault codes for the models Boeing chose to support took less than 30 days. If any service information is developed to support compliance with paragraph (h) of this AD it will be evaluated for approval using the AMOC process specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

ANA and Thomson Airways requested that the FAA provide clarification regarding how to accomplish the modification specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. ANA noted that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD provides clear alternative actions for cargo airplanes. ANA stated that it could not identify how to modify the FQIS in passenger airplanes not subject to the FTFR rule. ANA noted that it contacted Boeing for clarification and Boeing stated that the FRM (which Boeing calls NGS) retrofit is the method of compliance for these airplanes. ANA asked that the FAA either clarify how to modify the FQIS system or accept an FRM retrofit as terminating action. Thomson Airways asked if the intent of the proposed AD is to install an NGS on affected airplanes. Thomson Airways also asked for clarification regarding the FQIS modification, stating that the proposed AD does not provide detail regarding modifying the FQIS itself, only the FQIS wiring.

The FAA agrees to clarify. As noted in paragraph (c) of this AD, airplanes on which FRM or IMM that meets certain FAA airworthiness standards is installed are excluded from this AD. Paragraph (g) of this AD requires modification of the FQIS on passenger airplanes to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. The specifics of this modification may vary as long as the modification addresses the unsafe condition identified in this AD and the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD are used to approve the modification method. Operators may choose to install an FRM or IMM that meets the criteria specified in paragraph (c), which would then remove that airplane from the applicability of this AD, negating the need to do the modification specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. Otherwise, operators must obtain an AMOC as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD and modify their airplane accordingly. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Korean Air Lines (KAL), KLM, AMES CAMO, and Duco Schiere requested that the FAA provide a detailed and cost-effective method of compliance for passenger airplanes. KAL, AMES CAMO, and Duco Schiere noted that the proposed AD does not provide a clear means of compliance for the modification, such as a Boeing service bulletin. AMES CAMO noted that without a clear method of compliance, it is difficult to determine the extent of the required work. KAL and KLM noted that the majority of non-FAA operators are not required to retrofit the NGS system. KLM stated that since 2008 the level of fuel tank safety has been improved by the implementation of several costly SFAR 88 service bulletins, implementation of airworthiness limitations into the maintenance program and implementation of CDCCLs into maintenance documents. KLM mentioned that the modification would require an airplane to be out of service for a lengthy time. KLM added that the modification would add weight to the airplane and require additional fuel usage. KAL and KLM requested that the FAA encourage Boeing to develop an acceptable cost-effective method of compliance that does not require installation of an NGS.

The FAA agrees that the lack of service information for FQIS modifications makes it difficult to assess the required work to modify the FQIS, and acknowledges the high cost of NGS. However, the FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests. For passenger-carrying airplanes, the cost per airplane of providing a modification of the FQIS that fully complies with the airworthiness standards was estimated by Boeing and their FQIS vendor (Goodrich) prior to the issuance of the NPRM to be comparable to the cost of installing NGS. Based on that cost estimate, Boeing proposed that they not be required to develop a fully compliant FQIS modification for passenger airplanes because it would not provide significant savings to operators and NGS would provide a greater safety benefit. The FAA agreed.

The FAA's understanding is that Boeing's current position is the same, and that they do not plan to develop a fully compliant FQIS modification for passenger airplanes to address paragraph (g) of this AD. However, if service information is developed, approved, and available in the future, operators may request approval under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD to use approved service instructions as an AMOC for the requirements of this AD, or the FAA may approve the service information as a global AMOC for this AD.

Boeing asked that the FAA clarify the intent of the differences between the requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that it is unclear what change is expected for compliance with paragraph (g) of the proposed AD versus paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Boeing suggested that one possibility is that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is intended to cover development of transient suppression, while paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is intended to cover compliance via FQIS wire separation and BITE checks.

The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraph (g) of this AD is intended to require, for passenger airplanes that are subject to this AD, a modification to the FQIS that makes it fully compliant with 14 CFR 25.981(a), as amended by amendment 25-102. A fully compliant FQIS modification might include wire separation or transient suppression devices, but due to the system design, either option would likely require changes to the FQIS processor.

Paragraph (h) of this AD is intended to allow, as an optional method of compliance for all-cargo airplanes only, a change that isolates the center fuel tank circuit wiring between the FQIS processor and the fuel tanks from other wiring that is connected to a sufficient power source to create an ignition source in the event of a hot short between the wiring. Such a change would not be fully compliant with the airworthiness regulations (hence the requirement to obtain a partial exemption from 14 CFR 25.901(c) and 14 CFR 25.981(a) for any such design change), but would provide a level of risk reduction that the FAA considers acceptable for all-cargo airplanes and would significantly reduce the costs relative to a fully compliant modification.

A4A/CAA and Thomson Airways requested that the FAA extend the compliance time for the modifications specified in paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD to 72 months. A4A/CAA stated that the compliance time should match that of AD 2016-07-07 because the unsafe condition and corrective actions are similar. A4A/CAA stated that although service information was not yet available, the compliance time should align with major maintenance schedules, but should be not less than 72 months after service information is available. Thomson Airways noted that 72 months would provide operators a better opportunity to work within existing maintenance program schedules.

Conversely, NATCA recommended that the FAA reject requests for a compliance time longer than 5 years as proposed in the NPRM. Assuming final rule issuance in 2016, NATCA estimated that a 5-year compliance time would result in required compliance by 2021-25 years after the TWA Flight 800 fuel tank explosion that led to the requirements in SFAR 88, and 20 years after issuance of SFAR 88.

The FAA agrees with Thomson Airways and A4A/CAA's request to extend the compliance time, and disagrees with NATCA's request. The FAA received similar requests to extend the compliance time from several commenters regarding the NPRMs for the FQIS modification on other airplanes. The FAA disagrees with establishing a compliance time based on issuance of any service information that is not yet approved or available. The FAA has determined that a 72-month compliance time is appropriate and will provide operators adequate time to prepare for and perform the required modifications without excessive disruption of operations. The FAA has determined that the requested moderate increase in compliance time will continue to provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has changed paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD accordingly.

Boeing requested that the FAA revise the compliance time for the proposed AD to “60 months after an exemption from [14 CFR 25.981(a)(3)] is FAA-approved.” Boeing suggested that it would take 6 months to develop an exemption petition and 6 months for the FAA to approve that exemption. Boeing added that the FAA has previously identified that the BITE checks procedure and wire separation design were not sufficient for compliance with 14 CFR 25.981(a)(3).

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. An AD typically does not include a compliance time that is based on an optional action that an operator or manufacturer might choose to take. In addition, the FAA notes that Boeing has already received exemptions for the Model 747-400, 757, and 767 airplanes, and could quickly petition for and obtain approval of a similar exemption for the Model 737 airplanes using an almost identical petition. The FAA's flow time to disposition such a petition would be approximately 90 days, during which time Boeing could still proceed with development of the modification. In addition, as noted above, the compliance time for paragraph (h)(2) of this AD has been extended to 72 months, giving additional time for operators or manufacturers to obtain an exemption.

Boeing requested that paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD be revised to extend the repetitive check interval for the BITE checks. Boeing requested that the repetitive interval be extended to 750 flight hours to match the repetitive intervals specified in the service information for a related AD.

The FAA agrees for the reason provided, and because 750 flight hours better aligns with most operators' maintenance programs. The FAA intended to propose a 750 flight hour interval, but inadvertently specified 650 flight hour intervals in the proposed AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to specify repetitive intervals of 750 flight hours.

A4A/CAA noted that the Costs of Compliance section in the NPRM stated all U.S.-registered airplanes are currently operated as passenger airplanes and that “because of the requirement in 14 CFR 121.1117 to install FRM on U.S. air-carrier passenger airplanes by the end of 2017, it is likely that no U.S. airplanes would actually be affected by this proposed AD.” A4A/CAA noted that 14 CFR 121.1117 does not require FRM to be installed on all-cargo airplanes. The commenter stated that U.S.-registered Model 737-700 all-cargo airplanes without FRM installed will be operated by 2017. The FAA infers that A4A/CAA is requesting that the Costs of Compliance section be revised to reflect the number of all-cargo U.S.-registered airplanes.

The FAA agrees that there are currently U.S.-registered Model 737-700 all-cargo airplanes operating without FRM installed. The FAA has revised the Costs of Compliance section of this AD to reflect these airplanes.

A4A/CAA stated that the proposed AD will interrupt aviation transportation to remote Alaskan communities not serviced by other modes of transportation, contrary to the statement that the proposed AD “will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.” A4A/CAA noted that, beginning in 2017, Model 737-700 airplanes in an all-cargo configuration and without FRM installed will provide transportation to remote Alaskan communities. A4A/CAA added that these airplanes would be required to be removed from service for an extended time while accomplishing the proposed modification, which the FAA estimates would take 1,200 work-hours.

The FAA acknowledges that, since the NPRM was issued, at least one major operator began using converted Model 737-700 cargo airplanes for intrastate flights in Alaska. The few remote communities in Alaska that have airports suitable for a Model 737-700 are unlikely to be served solely by Model 737-700 airplanes. The FAA has considered the potential for impact to these communities due to Model 737-700 airplanes being temporarily out of service for the required modification actions, and considers the safety concern to outweigh those potential impacts. This AD was developed with regard to minimizing the economic impact on operators to the extent possible, consistent with the safety objectives of this AD. In any event, the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) require operators to correct an unsafe condition identified on an airplane to ensure operation of that airplane in an airworthy condition. The FAA has determined in this case that the requirements are necessary and the indirect costs would be outweighed by the safety benefits of the AD. The FAA considers the 72 month compliance adequate time for operators to schedule the required modifications without excessive disruption of service to those communities. However, if an operator considers that a moderate delay in the incorporation of the required modification would significantly reduce the impact on their operations or the impact on service to a remote community in Alaska while still providing an acceptable level of safety, that operator can use the procedures in paragraph (i) of this AD to explain those impacts and request approval of an extension of the compliance time.

NATCA recommended that the FAA follow the agency's compliance and enforcement policy to require manufacturers to develop the necessary design changes soon enough to support operators' ability to comply with the proposed requirements. NATCA noted that SFAR 88 required manufacturers to develop all design changes for unsafe conditions identified by their SFAR 88 design reviews by December 2002, or within an additional 18 months if the FAA granted an extension.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concerns. However, any enforcement action is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA has not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

Duco Schiere stated the NPRM is not clear about which configurations (passenger/cargo, with/without NGS installed) of Model 737 airplanes are applicable to the AD. The FAA infers the commenter is requesting the FAA clarify the applicability.

The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes (including passenger and cargo airplanes) except for airplanes having configurations identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD. Airplanes with an installed NGS that meets the criteria specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD are excluded from this AD. Airplanes with an installed IMM such as fuel tank explosion suppression foam that meets the criteria specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD are also excluded from this AD.

The FAA has revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to clarify the compliance time for the BITE check relative to the requirement to record the fault codes. The FAA recognized that operators might interpret the proposed requirements for alternative actions for cargo airplanes as allowing additional flights prior to performing the BITE check after first recording the fault codes. The FAA intended for operators to perform the BITE check immediately after recording the fault codes to address both the fault codes that exist prior to performing the BITE check and any new codes that are identified during the BITE check.

The FAA had previously determined, as specified in the NPRM, that the work involved for the cargo airplane wire separation modification would take 230 work-hours. Boeing has since provided an updated estimate of 74 work-hours for the alternative modification for cargo airplanes. The FAA has revised the cost estimate for the modification accordingly in this final rule.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and 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.

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

There are approximately 1,393 U.S.-registered Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes in service. Several of those airplanes are currently operated as cargo airplanes. Beginning with line number 2620, however, Boeing has delivered airplanes with FRM/NGS installed. The FAA estimates that 831 affected airplanes on the U.S. Register were delivered without FRM installed, but the agency does not know the number of airplanes that have had FRM installed post-production. Because of the requirement in 14 CFR 121.1117 to install FRM on U.S. air-carrier passenger airplanes by the end of 2017, it is likely that no U.S. passenger airplanes would actually be affected by this AD. However, U.S.-registered cargo airplanes may be affected by this AD. For any affected airplane, 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:

Under longstanding FAA policy, the revocation of airman, ground instructor, and medical certificates, and the withdrawal of all special issuances or SODAs, is the appropriate sanction for violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4). 1 The period between the discovery of an apparent violation of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4) and, if appropriate, the issuance of an order revoking airman, medical, and ground instructor certificates can be lengthy, making the date on which an order of revocation will be issued uncertain. Investigative personnel compile an enforcement investigative report (EIR) containing evidence relating to the apparent violation. Such investigations include gathering, among other evidence, legal and/or medical documentation from various governmental entities or healthcare providers. Investigative personnel also include as evidence letters of investigation (LOIs) to apparent violators and any information provided in response to LOIs. Following the compilation of evidence, investigative personnel provide analyses as to how the evidence relates to the violation and recommended sanction type. The EIR is subject to various levels of review within the FAA program office. If the program office deems the EIR sufficient, it transmits the EIR to the Office of the Chief Counsel's Enforcement Division (AGC-300) for evaluation and, if appropriate, initiation of legal enforcement action. Accordingly, a variety of factors affect the timing of the issuance of an order of revocation for an apparent violation of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4).

In addition, FAA regulations generally proscribe individuals whose airman and ground instructor certificates have been revoked from applying for new airman and ground instructor certificates for one year following the effective date of an order of revocation. Under 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2), unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person whose pilot, flight instructor, or ground instructor certificate has been revoked may not apply for any certificate, rating, or authorization for one year after the date of revocation. Under 14 CFR 63.11(d), unless the order of revocation provides otherwise, a person whose flight engineer or flight navigator certificate is revoked may not apply for the same kind of certificate for one year after the date of revocation. Under 14 CFR 65.11(d)(1) and (2), unless the order of revocation provides otherwise, a person whose air traffic control tower operator, aircraft dispatcher, or parachute rigger certificate is revoked may not apply for the same kind of certificate for one year after the date of revocation; and a person whose mechanic or repairman certificate is revoked may not apply for either of those kinds of certificates for one year after the date of revocation. 2 In short, following the requisite investigation and case evaluation processes that take place prior to the issuance of an order revoking airman and ground instructor certificates for a 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4) violation, an applicant may have to wait up to one year following the issuance of an order to make application for any new such certificate.

The prompt settlement policy announced in this notice for violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1)-(4) will generally afford an individual eligible for the policy the opportunity to apply for any airman and ground instructor certificate sooner than had the case proceeded in the absence of the policy. The individual would still be subject to the one-year post-revocation bar applicable to applications for new airman or ground instructor certificates, but would have the opportunity to apply for such certificates generally sooner than under the current process because much of the investigation and evaluation processes would be abbreviated or eliminated. Moreover, this policy will generally add predictability as to when the FAA would issue the order and, accordingly, when an individual could submit an application for a new airman or ground instructor certificate.

The policy will also apply when any controlled substance conviction or motor vehicle action that is the basis for a violation of 14 CFR 61.15(a), (d), or (e) also forms the basis for an intentional falsification violation under 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1). 3 For example, the policy will apply to: (1) Violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) and 14 CFR 61.15(e) when the violations were related to the same driving under the influence conviction; (2) violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) and 14 CFR 61.15(a) when the violations were related to the same controlled substance conviction; and (3) violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) and 14 CFR 61.15(d) and (e) when the violations were related to the same motor vehicle action or actions.

In 2018, the FAA implemented a similar policy for commercial pilots who violate certain FAA drug and alcohol-related prohibitions, including those involving a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result or refusal to submit to DOT drug or alcohol testing. 4 The appropriate sanction for such violations is the revocation of airman, ground instructor, and medical certificates held by the commercial pilot. As with violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4), a violation of drug and alcohol testing regulations is subject to comprehensive investigation, which, in turn, is subject to program office and Office of the Chief Counsel review before the FAA issues a revocation order. Further, as mentioned above, an individual whose part 61 certificate is revoked may not apply for a new part 61 certificate, rating, or authorization for one year after the effective date of the revocation order. 5 The FAA's drug and alcohol prompt settlement policy allows eligible pilots to promptly settle their case with the FAA and avoid a potentially lengthy investigation and FAA case evaluation process. In turn, eligible pilots can benefit from an earlier start of the one-year application waiting period specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2). Further, the policy affords both the pilot and FAA the opportunity to better allocate resources.

Under this prompt settlement policy, following the issuance of an LOI for violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1)-(4), an eligible individual who is the subject of the legal enforcement action would have the opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement providing for (1) the acceptance of the prompt issuance of an order revoking the individual's airman or ground instructor certificates; (2) the immediate surrender of the affected certificates in response to the order; and (3) the waiver of appeal rights. This policy is expected to afford eligible individuals who are the subject of legal enforcement action for violating 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1)-(4) the opportunity to apply for a new airman certificate under 14 CFR parts 61, 63, and 65, or a new ground instructor certificate under 14 CFR part 61, sooner than in the absence of such a policy. The policy will also apply when any controlled substance conviction or motor vehicle action that was the basis for a violation of 14 CFR 61.15(a), (d), or (e) also forms the basis for an intentional falsification violation under 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1). Under this policy, the FAA will send notification to individuals who appear to have violated those provisions that they may contact the applicable program office within ten days of receipt of the notice to request consideration for a prompt settlement of the legal enforcement action. The FAA will send the notification in conjunction with the LOI.

Following an individual's request to be considered for application of this policy, the FAA will determine the individual's eligibility for the policy. The policy is not available when there is a question about an individual's qualification to hold a part 61, 63, or 65 certificate other than that presented by the 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4) violation. It is also not available for individuals who the FAA has found to have previously violated 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1) through (4).

If the FAA deems application of the prompt settlement policy is appropriate, AGC-300 enforcement counsel will provide the individual, or his or her legal representative, a formal agreement that sets forth the conditions for prompt settlement. The terms of this settlement agreement will normally include the following provisions.

(1) The settlement agreement must be executed by the parties within ten days after the FAA sends the agreement to the individual.

(2) The FAA will issue an emergency order revoking all airman, ground instructor, and unexpired medical certificates the individual holds immediately upon receiving the fully executed settlement agreement.

(3) The order of revocation will (i) require the immediate surrender of all airman, ground instructor, and unexpired medical certificates the individual holds to enforcement counsel; (ii) notify the individual that the failure to immediately surrender these certificates could subject the individual to further legal enforcement action, including a civil penalty; and (iii) inform the individual that the FAA will not accept an application for any new airman or ground instructor certificate for a period of one year from the date of the issuance of the order of revocation.

(4) The individual will waive all appeal rights from the order of revocation.

(5) The individual acknowledges that this agreement only concerns this enforcement action brought by the FAA and does not affect any actions that might be brought by State or other Federal agencies (whether civil or criminal), and that this agreement does not prevent the FAA from providing information about this matter to State or other Federal agencies.

(6) The parties will agree to bear their own costs and attorney fees, if any, in connection with the matter.

(7) The individual will agree to not initiate any litigation before any court, tribunal, or administrative entity concerning any costs, damages, or attorney fees, including applications under the Equal Access to Justice Act, incurred as a result of the above-referenced matter.

(8) The individual will agree to waive any and all causes of action against the FAA and its current and/or former officials and employees relating to the above-referenced matter.

This policy is expected to allow eligible individuals to more quickly apply for new certificates under 14 CFR parts 61, 63, and 65 following violations of 14 CFR 67.403(a)(1)-(4). It will also reduce uncertainty about the date of issuance of orders of revocation related to such violations, eliminate the unpredictability of litigation, and promote better resource allocation.

Title 15, part 285 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets out procedures and general requirements under which NVLAP operates as an unbiased third party to accredit both testing and calibration laboratories. The NVLAP procedures were first published in the Federal Register on February 25, 1976, and have been revised several times.

NVLAP currently operates in accordance with ISO/IEC 17011:2004, Conformity assessment—Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. The Laboratory Accreditation Programs operated by NVLAP are established based on the criteria in ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. Revisions to ISO/IEC 17011 and ISO/IEC 17025 were published in November 2017 with a three-year implementation period. These revisions include recognition of proficiency testing as an accreditation activity, addition and/or revision of terms, and update of the NVLAP mailing information. The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate these revised requirements into the regulations.

NIST Handbook 150 presents the basic procedures under which NVLAP operates, and considers the requirements contained in ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO/IEC 17025 and NIST Handbook 150 contain the general requirements that testing and calibration laboratories must meet if they wish to demonstrate that they operate an appropriate management system, are technically competent, and are able to generate technically valid results.

The provisions of NIST Handbook 150 are being incorporated by reference into 15 CFR 285.8 and 285.14, as this will substantially reduce the volume of material published in the Federal Register and the CFR. NIST Handbook 150 is available at no-cost at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/hb/2020/NIST.HB.150-2020.pdf.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary. This final rule makes minor, technical amendments in order to conform the regulations to changes that were made to the applicable international standard. These changes will not impact the public directly, and will only result in minor changes to NIST's internal practices. None of these changes will have a substantive impact beyond those already considered in previous supporting documents. For the same reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

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

This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132.

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

This final rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This final rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, NIST amends 15 CFR part 285 as follows:

In Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain), the President found that foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in information and communications technology and services (ICTS), which store and communicate vast amounts of sensitive information, facilitate the digital economy, and support critical infrastructure and vital emergency services, in order to commit malicious cyber-enabled actions, including economic and industrial espionage against the United States and its people. The President further found that the unrestricted acquisition or use in the United States of ICTS designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of foreign adversaries augments the ability of foreign adversaries to create and exploit vulnerabilities in ICTS, with potentially catastrophic effects, and thereby constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and declared a national emergency with respect to this threat. The President directed that additional steps are required to protect the security, integrity, and reliability of ICTS provided and used in the United States.

On August 6, 2020, in Executive Order 13942 (Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, and Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain), the President further found that the spread in the United States of mobile applications developed and owned by companies in the People's Republic of China (China) continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. The President directed that action must be taken to address the threat posed by the mobile application TikTok.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13942, any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, including TikTok Inc., in which any such company has any interest, as identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) within 45 days from the date of Executive Order 13942, shall be prohibited to the extent permitted under applicable law. This Identification of Prohibited Transactions implements that directive by the President.

Content delivery service means a service that copies, saves, and delivers content, for a fee, from geographically dispersed servers to end-users for the purposes of enabling faster delivery of content.

Entity means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization.

Information and communications technology or services means any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.

Internet hosting service means a service through which storage and computing resources are provided to an individual or organization for the accommodation and maintenance of one or more websites or internet services. Services may include but are not limited to file hosting, domain name server hosting, cloud hosting, and virtual private server hosting.

Internet transit service means a service where a network operator provides connectivity, transport and routing for another network, enabling them to reach broader portions of the internet. A transit provider's routers also announce to other networks that they can carry traffic to the network that has purchased transit.

Mobile application means a software application designed to run on a mobile device such as a phone, tablet, or watch.

Mobile application store means any online marketplace where users can download, or update, and install software applications to a mobile device.

Peering means a relationship between internet service providers (ISP) where the parties directly interconnect to exchange internet traffic, most often on a no-cost basis.

Person means an individual or entity.

Subsidiary means a company that is owned or controlled by a parent or holding company.

Transaction means any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology or service.

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq., Executive Order 13873 (84 FR 22689, May 15, 2019), and as set forth and provided for in Executive Order 13942 (85 FR 48637, August 6, 2020), the Secretary has identified the following prohibited transactions:

Any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd. (a.k.a. Zìjié Tiàodòng), Beijing, China, or its subsidiaries, including TikTok Inc., in which any such company has any interest, involving:

1. Any provision of services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on September 27, 2020, to distribute or maintain the TikTok mobile application, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store, or any online marketplace where mobile users within the land or maritime borders of the United States and its territories may download or update applications for use on their mobile devices;

2. Any provision of internet hosting services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok mobile application within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories;

3. Any provision of content delivery network services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok mobile application within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories;

4. Any provision of directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, enabling the functioning or optimization of the TikTok mobile application within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories;

5. Any utilization, occurring on or after 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time on November 12, 2020, of the TikTok mobile application's constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the land and maritime borders of the United States and its territories; or

6. Any other transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with ByteDance Ltd., or its subsidiaries, including TikTok Inc., in which any such company has any interest, as may be identified at a future date under the authority delegated under Executive Order 13942.

The identified prohibitions herein only apply to the parties to business-to-business transactions, and apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to Executive Order 13942, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of Executive Order 13942.

These identified prohibitions do not apply to:

(1) Payment of wages, salaries, and benefit packages to employees or contractors;

(2) The exchange between or among TikTok mobile application users of personal or business information using the TikTok mobile application;

(3) Activities related to mobile applications intended for distribution, installation or use outside of the United States by any person, including but not limited to any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and all ancillary activities, including activities performed by any U.S. person, which are ordinarily incident to, and necessary for, the distribution, installation, and use of mobile applications outside of the United States; or

(4) The storing of TikTok mobile application user data in the United States.

Nothing in this Identification of Prohibited Transactions shall prohibit any transaction necessary to effectuate the divestment required by Order of August 14, 2020 (85 FR 51297) (Regarding the Acquisition of Musical.ly by ByteDance Ltd.). Any other transaction with ByteDance Ltd. or its subsidiaries is permitted under Executive Order 13942, as implemented by the Secretary, unless identified as prohibited or otherwise contrary to law.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.; National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; Executive Order 13942, Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, August 6, 2020; Executive Order 13873, Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain, May 15, 2019.

This document of the Department of Commerce was signed on September 21, by Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the Department of Commerce. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned Department of Commerce Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Commerce. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

TVA issues this final rule to incorporate into the Code of Federal Regulations a new 18 CFR 130.70 Subpart F, which would implement the requirements of Executive Order 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.” 84 FR 55235 (October 9, 2019) (E.O. 13891). E.O. 13891 requires agencies to provide more transparency around the issuance and use of guidance documents, including by promulgating procedures to increase public involvement in the TVA guidance document process. As noted in E.O. 13891, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to provide public notice of proposed regulations, allow interested parties an opportunity to comment, consider and respond to significant comments, and publish final regulations in the Federal Register (See 5 U.S.C. 553). Such regulations, also known as legislative rules, have the force and effect of law and are legally binding upon the public. In addition to legislative rules, agencies may clarify existing obligations of regulated entities through nonbinding guidance documents, which the APA exempts from notice-and-comment requirements. (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)). E.O. 13891 defines “guidance document” as “an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation,” with a few noted exceptions listed in E.O. 13891, the APA and associated regulation. Guidance documents do not have the force and effect of law, and are intended only to provide clarity to the public of existing statutory and regulatory obligations. However, as noted in E.O. 13891, some agency guidance documents may impose obligations beyond those required by statute or regulation, or carry a threat of enforcement if the guidance is not followed by regulated parties. Additionally, the public may not have sufficient notice of guidance documents, which are not always published in the Federal Register or distributed to all regulated parties. See 84 FR 55235. Accordingly, E.O. 13891 requires agencies to provide more transparency for their guidance documents by creating a searchable online database for current guidance documents, by requiring agencies to establish procedures to allow the public to comment on significant guidance documents, and authorizing the public to petition the agency to withdraw or modify guidance documents. Moreover, E.O. 13891 requires agencies to clearly state in their guidance documents that such guidance Does not have the force and effect of law and is not legally binding, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. This final rule would implement the requirements of E.O. 13891. This final rule would apply to all TVA guidance documents, which TVA proposes to define in the same manner as that term is defined in E.O. 13891, the APA and associated regulations, and OMB memo M-20-02 Memorandum for Regulatory Policy Officers at Executive Departments and Agencies and Managing and Executive Directors of Certain Agencies and Commissions, Dominic J. Mancini, OIRA Acting Director (Oct. 31, 2019). The final rule would also adopt the same definition of “significant guidance document” as that term is defined in E.O. 13891 Section 2. In accordance with E.O. 13891, TVA will require that all TVA guidance documents clearly state that they do not have the force and effect of law and are not legally binding on the public, and that they are only intended to provide clarity to the public regarding existing statutory and regulatory requirements. Moreover, TVA guidance documents will be required to be written clearly, and to refrain from using mandatory language, such as the terms “shall” or “must.” If a guidance document purports to describe, approve, or recommend specific conduct that is beyond what is required by existing statute, legislative or judicial rule, TVA's final regulation would require that TVA's guidance document will not be used as an independent basis for enforcement. TVA also proposes in this new rule to require that all TVA guidance documents be reviewed and cleared by the Office of the General Counsel before public availability. Additionally, the final rule would require that significant guidance documents be approved by the TVA Board of Directors or by delegation to a TVA Executive. This will ensure that the requirements and intent of E.O. 13891 are met, and that guidance documents are issued in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.

The final rule also provides procedures for the public to petition the agency to modify or withdraw guidance documents. With this final rule, TVA would effectuate the requirements of E.O. 13891 and ensure that TVA's process for the issuance of guidance documents is transparent and accessible to the public. The final rule also assures regulated parties that such guidance is not legally binding and does not affect the rights and obligations of regulated parties.

This final rule is promulgated under the authority of the TVA Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 831 et seq. and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a multi-purpose corporate agency of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power companies serving 10 million people in parts of seven southeastern states. TVA provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists local power companies and state and local governments with economic development and job creation.

TVA will accept comments, data, and information regarding this final rule on or before the date provided in DATES . Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to TVA General Counsel staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, TVA will use this information to contact you. If TVA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, TVA may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below. TVA processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to TVA. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to TVA electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that they believe to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” that deletes the information believed to be confidential.

Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. TVA will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and will treat it according to its determination. It is TVA's policy that all comments, including any personal information provided in the comments, may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, except for information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure.

TVA sought informal review and support from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). TVA does not anticipate that this rulemaking will have an economic impact on regulated entities. This is a proposed rule of agency procedure and practice. The proposed rule describes TVA's internal procedures for the promulgation and processing of guidance documents, to ensure that guidance documents only clarify existing statutory and regulatory obligations and do not impose any new obligations. TVA proposes to adopt these internal procedures as part of its implementation of E.O. 13891, and does not anticipate incurring significant additional resource costs in doing so. Moreover, it is anticipated that the public will benefit from the resulting increase in efficiency and transparency in the issuance of guidance documents, and more opportunities to comment on guidance documents.

Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” at 82 FR 9339 (January 30, 2017), states that the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 states that it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. More specifically, section 2 of E.O. 13771 requires, amongst other things, that the costs of any new regulation be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 2 prior regulations.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule would codify internal agency procedures regarding TVA's issuance of guidance documents. Additionally, as noted previously, guidance documents do not have the force and effect of law and are not legally binding on regulated entities. This rule would establish procedures to ensure that TVA guidance only clarifies existing statutory and regulatory obligations, rather than imposing any new obligations. TVA therefore does not anticipate any significant economic impacts from this final rule. For these reasons, TVA certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, TVA did not prepare an IRFA for this rulemaking.

The final rule would impose no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

TVA has determined that the final rule would be covered under the Categorical Exclusion found in TVA's National Environmental Policy Act regulations at paragraph 7 of appendix A to subpart C, 18 CFR part 1318. This Categorical Exclusion applies to actions that are administrative actions consisting solely of paperwork. The final rule would codify internal agency procedures for issuing guidance documents. The action would not have direct environmental impacts. Accordingly, TVA does not intend to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. TVA examined this final rule and determined that it would not preempt State law and would 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.

Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency regulations that have Tribal implications; that is, regulations that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The final rule would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, therefore the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements:

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;

(2) Write regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) Provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires Executive agencies to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the proposed regulation:

(1) Clearly specifies its preemptive effect, if any;

(2) Clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation;

(3) Provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;

(4) Specifies its retroactive effect, if any;

(5) Adequately defines key terms; and

(6) Addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

E.O. 12988 Section 3(c) requires Executive agencies to review regulations to determine whether the E.O. requirements are met, or the agency determines that it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. TVA has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final rule would meet the E.O. 12988 relevant standards.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, so UMRA requirements do not apply.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that:

(1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and

(2) Is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or

(3) Is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.

For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. The final rule would codify internal agency procedures and does not meet any of the three criteria listed above. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13211 do not apply.

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Chief Executive Officer approved the publication of this final rule, via delegation to the General Counsel.

This document of the Tennessee Valley Authority was approved on August 28, 2020, by Sherry A. Quirk, General Counsel, pursuant to delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned TVA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document for publication, as an official document of the Tennessee Valley Authority. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons stated previously, TVA is amending part 1301 of title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website ( www.treasury.gov/ofac ).

The Department of the Treasury issued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515 (the “Regulations”), on July 8, 1963, under various authorities, including the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301-41). OFAC has amended the Regulations on numerous occasions, including to implement National Security Presidential Memorandum-5, “Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba,” signed by the President on June 16, 2017, and the President's foreign policy toward Cuba.

Today, OFAC, in consultation with the State Department, is taking additional action to implement the Administration's foreign policy toward Cuba, as set forth in more detail below.

OFAC is incorporating a new prohibition at § 515.210 of the Regulations to prohibit any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property in Cuba that the Secretary of State has identified as a property that is owned or controlled by the Cuban government, a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, as defined in § 515.337, a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party, as defined in § 515.338, a close relative, as defined in § 515.339, of a prohibited official of the Government of Cuba, or a close relative of a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party. Concurrent with this regulatory amendment, the State Department is creating a new list, the Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List (CPA List), to publish the names, addresses, or other identifying details, as relevant, of properties identified as meeting such criteria, as well as the basis for the listing. The CPA List will be maintained by the State Department and published in the Federal Register . It will also be accessible through the following page on the State Department's website: www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/cuba-prohibited-accommodations.

OFAC is making conforming edits to § 515.421, which provides interpretive guidance with respect to transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction, to incorporate the new prohibition in § 515.210. This interpretive provision provides that any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized except in certain scenarios. OFAC is adding a provision at § 515.421(a)(6) to exclude from the scope of the interpretative provision lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property on the CPA List to the extent prohibited by § 515.210, where the terms of the applicable general or specific license expressly exclude such transactions.

OFAC is also amending several general licenses in Subpart E of the Regulations to exclude from the scope of such authorizations the lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge, at any property on the CPA List to the extent prohibited by § 515.210. More specifically, OFAC is amending the following sections to incorporate the exclusion related to § 515.210: (i) In § 515.533, which relates to exportations from the United States to Cuba, reexportations to Cuba, and the importation and servicing or repair of certain items previously exported or reexported to Cuba; (ii) in § 515.545, which relates to transactions involving information and informational materials; (iii) in § 515.559, which relates to certain export and import transactions by U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign firms; (iv) in § 515.560, which relates to travel-related transactions to, from, and within Cuba by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction; (v) in § 515.561, which relates to family visits; (vi) in § 515.563, which relates to journalistic activity in Cuba; (vii) in § 515.564, which relates to professional research and professional meetings in Cuba; (viii) in § 515.565, which relates to educational activities; (ix) in § 515.566, which relates to religious activities in Cuba; (x) in § 515.567, which relates to certain public performances, clinics, workshops, competitions, and exhibitions in Cuba; (xi) in § 515.572, which relates to the provision of travel, carrier, and other transportation-related, and remittance forwarding services; (xii) in § 515.574, which relates to support for the Cuban people; (xiii) in § 515.575, which relates to humanitarian projects in Cuba; and (xiv) in § 515.576, which relates to activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes. In addition, OFAC is making technical and conforming changes related to these amendments in a number of the above sections.

OFAC is amending four provisions of the Regulations to restrict the importation into the United States of Cuban-origin alcohol and tobacco products. More specifically, OFAC is amending the following authorizations to exclude the importation into the United States of Cuban-origin alcohol and tobacco products: (i) § 515.560(c)(3), which authorizes the purchase or other acquisition in Cuba and importation as accompanied baggage into the United States of Cuban-origin merchandise for personal use; (ii) § 515.569, which authorizes the importation of merchandise by any person arriving in the United States other than a citizen or resident of the United States, provided the importation is not in commercial quantities and are not imported for resale; (iii) § 515.571(a)(1), which authorizes the importation into the United States of accompanied baggage for personal use by or on behalf of a Cuban national who is present in the United States; and (iv) § 515.585(d), which authorizes the importation into the United States as accompanied baggage certain Cuban-origin goods that are purchased or acquired in a third country for personal use. OFAC is also making technical and conforming changes to § 515.571(a).

OFAC is eliminating the authorization in § 515.564(a)(2) of the Regulations related to attendance at, or organization of, professional meetings or conferences in Cuba. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are no longer authorized via general license to attend or organize professional meetings or conferences in Cuba pursuant to this section. OFAC is also amending § 515.564 to clarify that specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis authorizing the travel-related transactions in § 515.560(c) and other transactions that are related to (i) professional research in Cuba that does not qualify for the general license under § 515.564(a) or (ii) professional meetings or conferences in Cuba that are not authorized under other travel-related authorizations and that relate to activities otherwise authorized pursuant to the Regulations. Finally, to reflect this change, OFAC is making technical and conforming edits in this section, as well as conforming edits in §§ 515.534, 515.542, 515.547, 515.560, 515.572, 515.577, and 515.591.

OFAC is removing the authorization in § 515.567(b) of the Regulations related to public performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or non-athletic competitions, and exhibitions; however, OFAC may issue specific licenses, on a case-by-case basis, for transactions that are directly incident to participation in, or organization of, a public performance, clinic, workshop, athletic competition not covered by § 515.567(a), non-athletic competition, or exhibition in Cuba, subject to certain conditions. Upon this rule taking effect, the only athletic-related travel transactions authorized via general license in § 515.567 will be in connection with athletic competitions that qualify for the authorization in § 515.567(a).

Finally, OFAC is making a number of other technical and conforming changes as follows: (i) In § 515.101, OFAC is updating an outdated citation to the Trading With the Enemy Act; (ii) in §§ 515.209 and 515.582, OFAC is updating links to certain pages on the State Department's website that are out of date; (iii) in § 515.560, OFAC is removing the second occurrence of paragraph (e), which was previously included in error; and (iv) in § 515.570, OFAC is adjusting two cross-references to § 515.565 that previously referred to the wrong paragraphs of that section.

Because the amendment of the Regulations involves a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-12) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”) and § 515.572 of this part. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information are covered by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 1505-0164, 1505-0167, and 1505-0168. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 515 as follows:

Background

On April 20, 2020, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (85 FR 21811) which announced VA's intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case RIN 2900-AQ38 (Parts 809, 841 and 842). VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule and submit comments. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on June 19, 2020 and VA received no comments. This rule adopts as a final rule, without changes, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2020.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm /, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi).

This final rule contains one provision constituting a collection of information at 48 CFR 809.507-1 and 48 CFR 852.209-70 which require offerors on solicitations for management support and consulting services to advise, as part of the firm's offer, whether or not award of the contract to the firm might involve a conflict of interest and, if so, to disclose all relevant facts regarding the conflict. The information is used by the contracting officer to determine whether or not to award a contract to the firm or, if a contract is to be awarded despite a potential conflict, whether or not additional contract terms and conditions are necessary to mitigate the conflict.

No new collection of information is associated with this provision as a part of this final rule. The information collection requirement for 809.507-1 and 852.209-70 is currently approved by OMB and has been assigned OMB control number 2900-0418. This rule amends this information collection requirement to revise 809.507-1 to designate 852.209-70 as a provision instead of a clause. For the requested administrative amendments to VAAR 852.209-70, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA will submit this information collection amendment to OMB for its review.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This rulemaking does not change VA's policy regarding small businesses, does not have an economic impact to individual businesses, and there are no increased or decreased costs to small business entities. On this basis, the final rule would not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 as they do not apply.

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

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

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Brooks D. Tucker, Acting Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 14, 2020, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 48 CFR, parts 802, 809, 841, 842 and 852 as follows:

Background

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that Federal agencies, including NMFS, take into account how their regulations affect “small entities,” including small businesses, small Governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. Under the RFA, we must either prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or certify that the regulation, if put in place, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This requirement has been in place for any regulation proposed after January 1, 1981. Section 602 of the RFA requires that NMFS issue an Agenda of Regulations identifying rules under development that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 610 of the RFA requires Federal agencies to review existing regulations. It requires that NMFS publish a plan in the Federal Register explaining how it will review its existing regulations, which have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Regulations that became effective after January 1, 1981, must be reviewed within 10 years of the publication date of the final rule. Section 610(c) requires that we annually publish a list of final rules we will review during the succeeding 12 months in the Federal Register . The list must describe, explain the need for, and provide the legal basis for the rules being reviewed, as well as invite public comment on the rules contained in the list.

The purpose of the required review is to determine whether existing rules should be left unchanged, or whether they should be revised or rescinded to minimize significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities, consistent with the objectives of other applicable statutes. In deciding whether change is necessary, the RFA establishes five factors that NMFS must consider:

(1) Whether the rule is still needed;

(2) What type of complaints or comments were received concerning the rule from the public;

(3) The complexity of the rule;

(4) How much the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and

(5) How long it has been since the rule has been evaluated or how much the technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.

We will ensure that all rules, which have or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, are reviewed within 10 years of the year in which they were originally issued. Below is the list of rules, and their summaries, issued between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013, that we will be reviewing during 2020. We anticipate completing the reviews for all of these rules by March 31, 2021:

1. Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Guided Sport Charter Vessel Fishery for Halibut; Recordkeeping and Reporting. RIN 0648-AY38 (76 FR 6567; February 7, 2011). The final rule amended the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the Pacific halibut guided sport fishery in International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Area 2C (Southeast Alaska) and Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). These regulations revised the Federal requirements for submission of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Saltwater Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook data sheets, modified the logbook recording requirements, and added a definition of fishing week. This action was necessary to improve consistency between Federal and State of Alaska requirements for the submission of the logbook data sheets and address recent changes by the State to the logbook reporting format. This action was intended to achieve the halibut fishery management goals of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and to support the conservation and management provisions of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982.

2. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska License Limitation Program. RIN 0648-AY42 (76 FR 15826; March 22, 2011). The final rule implemented Amendment 86 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. This action added a Pacific cod endorsement on licenses issued under the License Limitation Program (LLP) in specific management areas if those licenses had been used on vessels that met minimum recent landing requirements using non-trawl gear, commonly known as fixed gear. This action exempted vessels that use jig gear from the requirement to hold an LLP license, modified the maximum length designation on a specific set of fixed gear licenses, and allows entities representing specific communities to receive a limited number of fixed-gear licenses with Pacific cod endorsements. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Fishery Management Plan, and other applicable law.

3. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; 2011 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications; Regulatory Amendment. RIN 0648-BA26 (76 FR 17789; March 31, 2011). NMFS issued final specifications for the 2011 Atlantic bluefish fishery, including total allowable landings (TAL), a commercial quota and recreational harvest limit, and a recreational possession limit. The intent of this action was to establish the allowable 2011 harvest levels and other management measures to achieve the target fishing mortality rate (F), consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP. The final rule also amended the bluefish regulations that specify the process for setting the annual TAL and target F to more clearly reflect the intent of the FMP. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

4. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Cook Inlet Beluga Whale; Final Rule. RIN 0648-AX50 (76 FR 20179; April 11, 2011). This rule designated critical habitat for the Cook Inlet beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ) distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Two areas were designated, comprising 7,800 square kilometers (km 2 ) (3,013 square miles (mi 2 ) of marine habitat. In developing this rule, NMFS considered public and peer review comments, as well as economic impacts and impacts to national security. NMFS decided in the final rule to exclude the Port of Anchorage in consideration of national security interest. Additionally, portions of military lands were determined to be ineligible for designation as critical habitat.

5. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 45; Final Rule and Interim Final Rule. RIN 0648-BA27 (76 FR 23042; April 25, 2011). This final rule partially approved Framework Adjustment (FW) 45 to the NE Multispecies FMP and implements the approved measures. FW 45 was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to make adjustments necessary to ensure that conservation and management objectives of the FMP, including preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, achieving optimum yield (OY), and minimizing the economic impact of management measures on affected vessels, were being met in accordance with the MSA. Specifically, this action revised the biological reference points and stock status for pollock, updated annual catch limits (ACL) for several stocks for fishing years (FYs) 2011-2012, adjusted the rebuilding program for Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail flounder, increased scallop vessel access to the Great South Channel Exemption Area, approved five new sectors, modified the existing dockside and at-sea monitoring requirements, revised several sector administrative provisions, established a Gulf of Maine (GOM) Cod Spawning Protection Area, and refined measures affecting the operations of NE multispecies vessels fishing with handgear. This action approved the Council's proposed FY 2011 U.S./Canada Management Area total allowable catch (TAC), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and ACL for GB yellowtail flounder, but replaced them with new catch limits for this stock through a parallel emergency action, included as part of this final rule, based on the International Fisheries Agreement Clarification Act (IFACA) that provided new flexibility in setting catch limits for this stock. In addition, this action disapproved a measure to delay fishing industry responsibility for paying for at-sea monitoring coverage costs in FY 2012. This action was necessary to ensure that the fishery is managed on the basis of the best available science, to comply with the ABC control rules adopted in Amendment 16 to the FMP, and to enhance the viability of the fishery. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

6. Fisheries Off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measure. RIN 0648-BA01 (76 FR 27508; May 11, 2011). This final rule established the 2011-2012 harvest specifications for most of the species in the groundfish fishery and management measures for that fishery off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California consistent with the MSA and the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This rule also established, under emergency authority in section 305 of the MSA, harvest specifications for eight overfished species, and for flatfish. Emergency authority was being invoked to implement measures that were included in Amendment 16-5 to the PCGFMP, which NMFS disapproved in December 2010. These included a new rebuilding plan for petrale sole, revised rebuilding plans for the remaining seven overfished species, and revised status determination criteria and precautionary harvest control rule for flatfish.

7. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Skate Complex Fishery; Framework Adjustment 1. RIN 0648-BA91 (76 FR 28328; May 17, 2011). This final rule implemented approved measures in Framework Adjustment 1 to the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan. Framework Adjustment 1 was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to adjust the possession limits for the skate wing fishery in order to slow the rate of skate wing landings, so that the available TAL was taken by the fishery over a longer duration in the FY than occurred in FY 2010, thus ensuring a steady market supply. The action also allowed vessels that process skate wings at sea to land skate carcasses for sale into the bait market, without counting the carcass landings against the TAL (skate wings are already converted to live weight for monitoring). Although recommended by the Council as part of Framework 1, this final rule announced that NMFS had disapproved a proposal to increase the incidental possession limit for skate wings that would have applied after the skate wing possession limit trigger was reached. This final rule did not adjust the skate fishery specifications for FY 2011. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

8. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Amendment 5. RIN 0648-AX70 (76 FR 30265; May 25, 2011). This final rule implemented measures that were approved in Amendment 5 to the Monkfish FMP. The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils developed Amendment 5 to bring the FMP into compliance with the ACL and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the MSA. This rule established the mechanisms for specifying ACLs and AMs and set the ACT and associated measures for days-at-sea (DAS) and trip limits for the Southern Fishery Management Area. NMFS disapproved the proposed ACT, and associated measures, for the Northern Fishery Management Area on the grounds that they were not consistent with the most recent scientific advice. This final rule implemented three additional Amendment 5 management measures to promote efficiency and reduce waste, bring the biological and management reference points in the Monkfish FMP into compliance with revised National Standard 1 Guidelines, and made one correction to the monkfish weight conversion factors.

9. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program. RIN 0648-BA11 (76 FR 35781; June 20, 2011). NMFS issued regulations to implement Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs FMP. This action amended the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program by establishing a process for eligible contract signatories to request that NMFS exempt holders of West-designated individual fishing quota (IFQ) and individual processor quota (IPQ) in the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery from the West regional delivery requirements. Federal regulations require West-designated golden king crab IFQ to be delivered to a processor in the West region of the Aleutian Islands with an exact amount of unused West-designated IPQ. However, sufficient processing capacity may not be available each season. This rule was necessary to prevent disruption to the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery, while providing for the sustained participation of municipalities in the region. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable law.

10. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS): Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas and Atlantic Tuna Fisheries Management Measures. RIN 0648-BA65 (76 FR 39019; July 5, 2011). NMFS modified Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) base quotas for all domestic fishing categories; established BFT quota specifications for the 2011 fishing year; reinstated pelagic longline target catch requirements for retaining BFT in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area (NED); amended the Atlantic tunas possession-at-sea and landing regulations to allow removal of Atlantic tunas tail lobes; and clarified the transfer-at-sea regulations for Atlantic tunas. This action was necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the MSA.

11. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Modification of the Retention of Incidentally-Caught Highly Migratory Species in Atlantic Trawl Fisheries. RIN 0648-BA45 (76 FR 49368; August 10, 2011). This final rule modified the permitting requirements and retention limits for Atlantic HMS that were incidentally-caught in Atlantic trawl fisheries. This action reduced regulatory dead discards of incidentally-caught Atlantic swordfish in the Illex squid trawl fishery by establishing a new Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit for all valid Illex squid moratorium permit holders. The Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit allowed up to 15 swordfish per trip to be retained. The final rule also established a retention limit for smoothhound sharks in all Atlantic trawl fisheries. These actions were necessary to achieve domestic management objectives under the MSA, and implemented the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), which included objectives in the FMP to monitor and control all components of fishing mortality, both directed and incidental, so as to ensure the long-term sustainability of HMS stocks, and to provide the data necessary for assessing HMS fish stocks and managing HMS, including addressing inadequacies in current data collection and the ongoing collection of economic and bycatch data in Atlantic HMS fisheries.

12. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Shark Management Measures. RIN 0648-BA69 (76 FR 53652; August 29, 2011). NMFS implemented the ICCAT recommendations 10-07 and 10-08, which prohibited the retention, transshipping, landing, storing, or selling of hammerhead sharks in the family Sphyrnidae (except for Sphyrna tiburo ) and oceanic whitetip sharks ( Carcharhinus longimanus ) caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. This rule affected the commercial HMS pelagic longline (PLL) fishery and recreational fisheries for tunas, swordfish, and billfish in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This action implemented ICCAT recommendations, consistent with the ATCA, and furthers domestic management objectives under the MSA.

13. Fisheries of Northeastern United States: Atlantic Herring Fishery; Regulatory Amendment. RIN 0648-BA79 (76 FR 54385; September 1, 2011). NMFS revised the reporting requirements for vessels issued Atlantic herring (herring) permits, because more timely catch information was necessary to monitor herring catch against the stock-wide herring ACL and herring management area sub-ACLs, to help prevent sub-ACLs overages and the chance of premature fishery closures. This action required limited access herring vessels to report catch daily via vessel monitoring systems (VMS), open access herring vessels to report catch weekly via the interactive voice response system, and all herring-permitted vessels to submit vessel trip reports weekly.

14. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab; Amendment 3. RIN 0648-BA22 (76 FR 60379 September 29, 2011). This final rule implemented measures that were approved in Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP. The New England Fishery Management Council developed Amendment 3 to bring the FMP into compliance with the ACL and AM requirements of the MSA. This rule established the mechanisms for specifying an ACL and AMs and set the TAL for red crab for the 2011-2013 FY. NMFS disapproved two proposed measures in Amendment 3. This final rule implemented additional management measures to promote efficiency in the red crab fishery.

15. Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Fishery. RIN 0648-BA13 (76 FR 61985, October 6, 2011). NMFS established regulations to implement a fishing capacity reduction (buyback) program and an industry fee system to repay a $23,476,500 loan for the Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Fishery (Reduction Fishery). The fee system involves future landings of the Reduction Fishery. This action's intent was to permanently reduce the most fishing capacity at the least cost and establish the fee system. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

16. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon. RIN 0648-XF87 (76 FR 65324; October 20, 2011). NMFS issued a final rule to designate critical habitat for the southern DPS of Pacific eulachon ( Thaleichthys pacificus ), pursuant to section 4 of the ESA. NMFS designated 16 specific areas as critical habitat within the states of California, Oregon, and Washington. The designated areas were a combination of freshwater creeks and rivers and their associated estuaries, comprising approximately 539 km (335 mi) of habitat. The Tribal lands of four Indian Tribes were excluded from designation after the evaluation of the impacts of designation and benefits of exclusion associated with Tribal land ownership and management by the Tribes. No areas were excluded from designation based on economic impacts. This final rule responded to and incorporated public comments received on the proposed rule and supporting documents, as well as peer reviewer comments received on our draft biological report and draft economic report.

17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Black Abalone. RIN 0648-AY62 (76 FR 66806; October 27, 2011). NMFS designated critical habitat for the endangered black abalone under the ESA. This designation included approximately 360 km 2 of rocky intertidal and subtidal habitat within five segments of the California coast between the Del Mar Landing Ecological Reserve to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, as well as on the Farallon Islands, Año Nuevo Island, San Miguel Island, Santa Rosa Island, Santa Cruz Island, Anacapa Island, Santa Barbara Island, and Santa Catalina Island. This designation included rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats from the mean higher high water (MHHW) line to a depth of −6 meters (m) (relative to the mean lower low water (MLLW) line), as well as the coastal marine waters encompassed by these areas. NMFS did not designate the specific area from Corona Del Mar State Beach to Dana Point, California, because they concluded that the economic benefits of exclusion from the critical habitat designation outweigh the benefits of inclusion and that exclusion of this specific area would not result in the extinction of the species. NMFS also concluded that two of the specific areas proposed for designation (San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island) were no longer eligible for designation, based on determinations that the U.S. Navy's revised integrated natural resource management plans (INRMPs) for these areas provide benefits to black abalone.

18. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Limited Access Privilege Program. RIN 0648-BA18 (76 FR 68354; November 4, 2011). NMFS issued regulations implementing Amendment 93 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. These regulations amended the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Amendment 80 Program to modify the criteria for forming and participating in a harvesting cooperative. This action was necessary to encourage greater participation in harvesting cooperatives, which enable members to more efficiently target species, avoid areas with undesirable bycatch, and improve the quality of products produced. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable law.

19. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Amendment 11. RIN 0648-AX05 (76 FR 68642; November 7, 2011). NMFS implemented approved measures in Amendment 11 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The approved measures included: A tiered limited access program for the Atlantic mackerel fishery; an open access incidental catch permit for mackerel; an update to essential fish habitat designations for all life stages of mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish; and the establishment of a recreational allocation for mackerel. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

20. Fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Revisions to Pacific Cod Fishing in Parallel Fishery in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. RIN 0648-AY65 (76 FR 73513; November 29, 2011). NMFS issued regulations to limit access of federally permitted pot and hook-and-line catcher/processors (C/Ps) to the Pacific cod fishery in Alaska State waters within three nautical miles of shore adjacent to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). The affected fishery is commonly known as the “parallel” fishery. The parallel fishery is managed by the State of Alaska concurrent with the Federal pot and hook-and-line fishery for Pacific cod in the BSAI. This rule limited access by federally permitted vessels to the parallel fishery for Pacific cod in three ways. First, it required an owner of a federally permitted pot or hook-and-line C/P vessel used to catch Pacific cod in the State of Alaska parallel fishery to be issued the same endorsements on his or her Federal fisheries permit (FFP) or license limitation program (LLP) license as currently were required for catching Pacific cod in the Federal waters of the BSAI. Second, it provided that the owner of a pot or hook-and-line C/P vessel who surrenders an FFP would not be reissued a new FFP for that vessel within the 3-year term of the permit. Third, it required an operator of any federally permitted pot or hook-and-line C/P vessel used to catch Pacific cod in the parallel fishery to comply with the same seasonal closures of Pacific cod that apply in the Federal fishery. These three measures were necessary to limit some C/Ps from catching a greater amount of Pacific cod in the parallel fishery than has been allocated to their sector from the BSAI total allowable catch. Maintaining Pacific cod catch amounts within BSAI sector allocations also would reduce the potential for shortened Pacific cod seasons for C/Ps in the Federal fishery. These three measures would improve the effectiveness of NMFS' catch accounting and monitoring requirements on vessels participating in the parallel fishery. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, the MSA, and other applicable laws.

21. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Adjustments to the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna General and Harpoon Category Regulations. RIN 0648-AX85 (76 FR 74003; November 30, 2011). NMFS adjusted the Atlantic BFT fishery regulations to: Increase the General category maximum daily retention limit; allow the General category season to remain open until the January subquota was reached, or March 31, whichever happens first; and increase the Harpoon category daily incidental retention limit. This action was intended to enable more thorough utilization of the available U.S. BFT quota for the General and Harpoon (commercial handgear) categories; minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable; expand fishing opportunities for participants in the commercial winter General category fishery; and increase NMFS' flexibility for setting the General category retention limit depending on available quota. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

22. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod Allocations in the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 83. RIN 0648-AY53 (76 FR 74670; December 1, 2011). NMFS published regulations to implement Amendment 83 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Amendment 83 allocated Western and Central GOA Pacific cod TAC limits among various gear and operational sectors. Sector allocations limit the amount of Western and Central GOA Pacific cod that each sector was authorized to harvest. This action reduced competition among sectors and supported stability in the Pacific cod fishery. This rule limited access to the Federal Pacific cod TAC fisheries prosecuted in State of Alaska waters, commonly known as the parallel fishery, adjacent to the Western and Central GOA. This action was intended to promote community participation and provide incentives for new entrants in the jig sector. It also promoted the goals and objectives of the MSA, the Fishery Management Plan, and other applicable laws.

23. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Vessel Monitoring Systems. RIN 0648-BA64 (76 FR 75492; December 2, 2011). NMFS finalized requirements for fishermen to replace currently required Mobile Transmitting Unit (MTU) VMS units with Enhanced Mobile Transmitting Unit (E-MTU) VMS in Atlantic HMS fisheries. The key difference between MTU and E-MTU VMS units was that the E-MTU VMS units were capable of two-way communication. The purpose of this final action was to facilitate enhanced communication with HMS vessels at sea, provide HMS fishery participants with an additional means of sending and receiving information at sea, ensure that HMS VMS units are consistent with the current VMS technology and type approval requirements that apply to newly installed units, and to provide NMFS enforcement with additional information describing gear onboard and target species. This rule affected all HMS PLL, bottom longline (BLL), and shark gillnet fishermen who are currently required to have VMS onboard their vessels. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

24. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Amendment 88. RIN 0648-BA97 (76 FR 81248; December 27, 2011). This final rule implemented Amendment 88 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). Amendment 88 was the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program (Rockfish Program). These regulations allocated exclusive harvest privileges to a specific group of license limitation program license holders who used trawl gear to target Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish, and northern rockfish during particular qualifying years. The Rockfish Program retained the conservation, management, safety, and economic gains realized under the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program (Pilot Program) and resolved identified issues in the management and viability of the rockfish fisheries. This action was necessary to replace particular Pilot Program regulations that were scheduled to expire at the end of 2011. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the GOA FMP, and other applicable law.

25. Endangered and Threatened Species: Critical Habitat Designation for Endangered Leatherback Sea Turtle. RIN 0648-AX06 (77 FR 4170; January 26, 2012). NMFS issued a final rule to revise the current critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) by designating additional areas within the Pacific Ocean. This designation included approximately 16,910 mi 2 (43,798 km 2 ) stretching along the California coast from Point Arena to Point Arguello east of the 3,000 meter depth contour; and 25,004 mi 2 (64,760 km 2 ) stretching from Cape Flattery, Washington to Cape Blanco, Oregon east of the 2,000 meter depth contour. The designated areas comprised approximately 41,914 mi 2 (108,558 km 2 ) of marine habitat and include waters from the ocean surface down to a maximum depth of 262 feet (80 m). Other Pacific waters within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) were evaluated based on the geographical area occupied by the species, but NMFS determined that they were not eligible for designation, as they did not contain the feature identified as essential to the conservation of the species. The total estimated annualized economic impact associated with this designation was estimated to range between $188,000 and $9.1 million U.S. dollars. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the ESA.

26. Fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in Bering Sea Pollock Fishery; Economic Data Collection. RIN 0648-BA80 (77 FR 5389; February 3, 2012). NMFS issued a final rule to implement the Chinook Salmon Economic Data Report Program, which would evaluate the effectiveness of Chinook salmon bycatch management measures for the Bering Sea pollock fishery that were implemented under Amendment 91 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. Members of the American Fisheries Act catcher vessels, catcher/processor, and mothership sectors as well as representatives for the six western Alaska Community Development Quota Program organizations that were receiving allocations of Bering Sea pollock would submit the data collected for this program. This rule was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the FMP, the MSA, and other applicable law.

27. Fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Community Development Quota Program. RIN 0648-AV33 (77 FR 6492; February 8, 2012). NMFS issued regulations that govern fisheries managed under the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program. These revisions were needed to comply with certain changes made to the MSA in 2006. Changes included revision to regulations associated with recordkeeping, vessel licensing, catch retention requirements, and fisheries observer requirements to ensure that they were no more restrictive than the regulations in effect for comparable non-CDQ fisheries managed under individual fishing quotas or cooperative allocations. In addition, NMFS removed CDQ Program regulations that were inconsistent with the MSA, including regulations associated with the CDQ allocation process, the transfer of groundfish CDQ and halibut prohibited species quota, and the oversight of CDQ groups' expenditures. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

28. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 47. RIN 0648-BB62 (77 FR 26104; May 2, 2012). NMFS approved Framework Adjustment 47 (Framework 47) to NE Multispecies FMP and implemented the approved measures. The New England Fishery Management Council developed and adopted Framework 47 based on the biennial review process established in the NE Multispecies FMP to develop ACLs and revise management measures necessary to rebuild overfished groundfish stocks and achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP. This action also implemented management measures and revised existing regulations that were not included in Framework 47, including common pool management measures for fishing year (FY) 2012, modification of the Ruhle trawl definition, and clarification of the regulations for charter/party and recreational groundfish vessels fishing in groundfish closed areas. This action was intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve OY, and ensure that management measures were based on the best available scientific information at the time Framework 47 was submitted. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

29. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program. RIN 0648-AX91 (77 FR 29556; May 18, 2012). NMFS issued a final rule to modify the IFQ Program for the Fixed-Gear Commercial Fisheries for Pacific Halibut and Sablefish in Waters in and off Alaska (IFQ Program) by revoking quota share (QS) that had been inactive since they were originally issued in 1995. Inactive QS were those held by persons that have never harvested their IFQ and had never transferred QS or IFQ into or out of their IFQ accounts. This action was necessary to achieve the catch limit from the halibut fisheries and optimum yield from the sablefish fisheries in Alaska in accordance with National Standard 1 of the MSA and to achieve more efficient use of these species. The intended effect was to promote the management provisions in the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.

30. Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions: American Lobster Fishery. RIN 0648-BA56 (77 FR 32420; June 1, 2012). This rule implemented new Federal American lobster regulations that limited entry into the lobster trap fishery in Lobster Conservation Management Area 1 (Area 1), located in the Federal inshore waters of the Gulf of Maine. Eligibility was based on specific eligibility criteria designed to identify active Federal Area 1 lobster trap permits. If a permit met the eligibility criteria, the permit holder was authorized to fish in the Federal waters of Area 1 with up to 800 lobster traps. The limited entry program responded to the recommendations for Federal action in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster.

31. Fisheries of Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 18A. RIN 0648-BB56 (77 FR 32408; June 1, 2012). NMFS issued this final rule to implement Amendment 18A to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 18A), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This rule modified the current system of accountability measures for black sea bass, limited effort in the black sea bass segment of the snapper-grouper fishery, and improved fisheries data in the for-hire sector of the snapper-grouper fishery. Amendment 18A also updated the rebuilding plan and modified the ABC for black sea bass. The rule established a spawning season closure for black sea bass. It also modified the rebuilding strategy, ABC, ACL and ACT for black sea bass; modified the current commercial and/or recreational size limits; established a commercial trip limit for black sea bass; and limited participation in the black sea bass pot segment of the snapper grouper fishery through an endorsement program. The rule also established an appeals process for fishermen excluded from the black sea bass pot endorsement program. This final rule was intended to reduce overcapacity in the black sea bass segment of the snapper-grouper fishery and improve data reporting in the commercial and for-hire sectors of the snapper grouper fishery. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

32. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Exempted Fishery for Southern New England Skate Bait Trawl Fishery. RIN 0648-BB35 (77 FR 38738; June 29, 2012). This final rule modified the regulations implementing the NE Multispecies FMP to allow vessels issued a Federal skate permit and a Skate Bait Letter of Authorization to fish for skates in a portion of southern New England (SNE) from July 1 through October 31 of each year, outside of the NE multispecies DAS program. This action allowed vessels to harvest skates in a manner that is consistent with the bycatch reduction objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

33. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Gulf of Alaska Pollock Fishery; Amendment 93. RIN 0648-BB24 (77 FR 42629; July 20, 2012). NMFS published regulations to implement Amendment 93 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. The regulations apply exclusively to the directed pollock trawl fisheries in the Central and Western Reporting Areas of the GOA (Central and Western GOA). Amendment 93 established separate prohibited species catch (PSC) limits in the Central and Western GOA for Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ), which would cause NMFS to close the directed pollock fishery in the Central or Western regulatory areas of the GOA, if the applicable limit was reached. This action also required retention of salmon by all vessels in the Central and Western GOA pollock fisheries until the catch was delivered to a processing facility where an observer was provided the opportunity to count the number of salmon and to collect scientific data or biological samples from the salmon. This action made several revisions to the Prohibited Species Donation (PSD) program. Amendment 93 was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

34. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Electronic Dealer Reporting Requirements. RIN 0648-BA75 (77 FR 47303; August 8, 2012). This final rule required that Federal Atlantic swordfish, shark, and tuna dealers report receipt of Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and bigeye, albacore, skipjack, and yellowfin (BAYS) tunas to NMFS through an electronic reporting system on a weekly basis. Atlantic HMS dealers would not be required to report bluefin tuna through this electronic reporting system, as a separate reporting system was in place for this species. This final rule changed the current definition of who was considered an Atlantic HMS dealer and required Atlantic HMS dealers to submit dealer reports to NMFS in a timely manner in order to be able to purchase commercially-harvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas. Any delinquent reports would need to be submitted by the dealer and received by NMFS before a dealer could purchase commercially-harvested Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas from a fishing vessel. These measures were necessary to ensure timely and accurate reporting, which was critical for quota monitoring and management of these species. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

35. Second Fishing Capacity Reduction Program: Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Non-pollock Groundfish Fishery. RIN 0648-BB06 (77 FR 58775; September 24, 2012). NMFS established regulations to implement a second fishing capacity reduction program (also commonly known as “buyback”) and an industry fee system to repay a $2.7 million loan for a single latent permit within the Longline Catcher Processor Subsector of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) non-pollock groundfish fishery (Reduction Fishery). The purpose of this action was to permanently reduce the greatest amount of fishing capacity at the least cost. This was intended to result in increased harvesting productivity for the permit holders remaining in the fishery. The loan for this program was added to the previous program loan of $35,700,000 authorized by the FY 2005 Appropriations Act. For purposes of this regulation, the terms license and permit were used interchangeably. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA and other applicable laws.

36. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 97. RIN 0648-BB18 (77 FR 59852, October 1, 2012). This final rule implemented Amendment 97 to the FMP for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. Amendment 97 allowed the owner of a trawl catcher/processor vessel authorized to participate in the Amendment 80 catch share program to replace that vessel with a vessel that meets certain requirements. This action established the regulatory process for replacement of vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet and the requirements for Amendment 80 replacement vessels, such as a limit on the overall length of a replacement vessel, a prohibition on the use of an American Fisheries Act (AFA) vessel as a replacement vessel, measures to prevent a replaced vessel from participating in Federal groundfish fisheries off Alaska that are not Amendment 80 fisheries, and measures that extend specific catch limits (known as Amendment 80 sideboards) to a replacement vessel. This action was necessary to promote safety-at-sea by allowing Amendment 80 vessel owners to replace their vessels for any reason at any time and by requiring replacement vessels to meet certain U.S. Coast Guard vessel safety standards, and to improve the retention and utilization of groundfish catch by these vessels by facilitating an increase in the processing capabilities of the fleet. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

37. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Silky Shark Management Measures. RIN 0648-BB96 (77 FR 60632; October 4, 2012). NMFS implemented the ICCAT Recommendation 11-08, which prohibits retaining, transshipping, or landing of silky sharks ( Carcharhinus falciformis ) caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. In order to facilitate domestic compliance and enforcement, NMFS also prohibited the storing, selling, and purchasing of the species. This rule primarily affected the commercial Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery for tuna and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. This rule did not affect commercial fishermen fishing for sharks with bottom longline, gillnet, or handgear, and it does not further affect recreational fishermen because harvesting silky sharks was already prohibited in the recreational fishery. This action implemented the ICCAT recommendation, consistent with the ATCA, and furthers domestic management objectives under the MSA.

38. Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska and Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Observer Program. RIN 0648-BB42 (77 FR 70062; November 21, 2012). This final rule implemented Amendment 86 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area and Amendment 76 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (Amendments 86/76). Amendments 86/76 add a funding and deployment system for observer coverage to the existing North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program (Observer Program) and amend existing observer coverage requirements for vessels and processing plants. The new funding and deployment system allowed NMFS to determine when and where to deploy observers according to management and conservation needs, with funds provided through a system of fees based on the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut in fisheries covered by the new system. This action was necessary to resolve data quality and cost equity concerns with the Observer Program's existing funding and deployment structure. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, the fishery management plans, and other applicable law.

39. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations: False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan. RIN 0648-BA30 (77 FR 71260; November 29, 2012). The final rule issued the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP), and regulatory measures and non-regulatory measures and recommendations to reduce mortalities and serious injuries of false killer whales in Hawaii-based longline fisheries. Regulatory measures include gear requirements, longline prohibited areas, training and certification in marine mammal handling and release, captains' supervision of marine mammal handling and release, and posting of NMFS-approved placards on longline vessels. In this rule, NMFS also recommended research and data collection programs. This final rule also revised the boundaries of the longline prohibited area around the main Hawaiian Islands to be consistent with the prohibited area established under the FKWTRP regulations. The FKWTRP was based on consensus recommendations submitted to NMFS by the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team (Team), with certain modifications described herein that were determined to be necessary to meet the requirements of the MMPA. This final rule was necessary because current mortality and serious injury levels of the Hawaii Pelagic and Hawaii Insular stocks of false killer whales incidental to the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fisheries are above the stocks' potential biological removal (PBR) levels, and are therefore inconsistent with the short- and long-term goals of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The FKWTRP was intended to meet the requirements of the MMPA.

40. International Fisheries; Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species: Transshipping, Bunkering, Reporting, and Purse Seine Discard Requirements. RIN 0648-BA85 (77 FR 71501; December 3, 2012). NMFS issued regulations under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFC Implementation Act) to implement requirements for U.S. fishing vessels used for commercial fishing that offload or receive transshipments of HMS, U.S. fishing vessels used for commercial fishing that provide bunkering or other support services to fishing vessels, and U.S. fishing vessels used for commercial fishing that receive bunkering or engage in other support services, in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention). Some of the requirements also applied to transshipments of fish caught in the area of application of the Convention (Convention Area) and transshipped elsewhere. NMFS also issued requirements regarding notification of entry into and exit from the “Eastern High Seas Special Management Area” (Eastern SMA) and requirements relating to discards from purse seine fishing vessels. This action was necessary for the United States to implement decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission or WCPFC) and to satisfy its obligations under the Convention, to which it is a Contracting Party.

41. Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery: 2013-2014 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures. RIN 0648-BC35 (78 FR 580; January 3, 2013). This final rule established the 2013-2014 harvest specifications and management measures for groundfish taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California consistent with the MSA and the PCGFMP. This final rule also revised the collection of management measures in the groundfish fishery regulations that are intended to keep the total catch of each groundfish species or species complex within the harvest specifications.

42. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Groundfish Retention Standard. RIN 0648-BA93 (78 FR 12627; February 25, 2013). NMFS published a regulatory amendment to modify the groundfish retention standard (GRS) program in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). This final rule removed certain regulatory requirements that mandate minimum levels of groundfish retention by the owners and operators of trawl catcher/processor (C/P) vessels not listed in the AFA, commonly referred to as either non-AFA trawl C/Ps or Amendment 80 vessels, and Amendment 80 cooperatives participating in the BSAI groundfish fisheries. The GRS program was implemented to increase the retention and utilization of groundfish; however, NMFS discovered that the regulatory methodology used to calculate compliance with the GRS requires individual Amendment 80 vessels and Amendment 80 cooperatives to retain groundfish at rates well above the minimum retention rates recommended by the Council or implemented by NMFS. As a result, the GRS imposed significantly higher than predicted compliance costs on vessel owners and operators due to the increased level of retention needed to meet the minimum retention rates. Additionally, NMFS discovered that enforcement of the GRS had proven far more complex, challenging, and potentially costly than anticipated by NMFS. This action was necessary to relieve Amendment 80 vessels and Amendment 80 cooperatives from undue compliance costs stemming from the minimum retention rates while continuing to promote the GRS program goals of increased groundfish retention and utilization. This action maintained current monitoring requirements for the Amendment 80 fleet and established a new requirement for Amendment 80 cooperatives to annually report groundfish retention performance as part of the report submitted to NMFS. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the fishery management plan, and other applicable law.

43. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 19. RIN 0648-BC48 (78 FR 20260; April 4, 2013). This final rule implemented Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The New England Fishery Management Council developed Amendment 19 to modify management measures that governed the small-mesh multispecies fishery, including the accountability measures, the year-round possession limits, and total allowable landings process. Amendment 19 was approved by NMFS on January 15, 2013. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

44. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 18B. RIN 0648-BB58 (78 FR 23858; April 23, 2013). NMFS issued this final rule to implement management measures described in Amendment 18B to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 18B), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This final rule: Established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery; established initial eligibility requirements for a golden tilefish longline endorsement; established an appeals process; allocated the commercial golden tilefish ACL among gear groups; established a procedure for the transfer of golden tilefish endorsements; and modified the golden tilefish trip limits; and established a trip limit for commercial fishermen who did not receive a golden tilefish longline endorsement. The intent of this rule was to reduce overcapacity in the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

45. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery. RIN 0648-BC27 78 FR 26118; May 3, 2013). This rule announced that NMFS partially approved Framework Adjustment 48 to the NE Multispecies FMP and implemented the approved measures in the regulations. Framework 48 was the first of two parallel and related actions developed by the New England Fishery Management Council to respond to updated stock status information and to adjust other management measures in the NE multispecies (groundfish) fishery beginning in FY 2013. This action implemented new status determination criteria for GOM cod, GB cod, Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) yellowtail flounder, and white hake based on new benchmark assessments completed for these stocks in 2012 and 2013. NMFS approved and implemented updated status determination criteria for white hake through this interim final rule and accepted further comment on this measure since it was not available for comment in the Framework 48 proposed rule. Through this action, NMFS also approved and implemented the following Framework 48 measures: Elimination of dockside monitoring requirements for the groundfish fishery; lower minimum fish sizes for several groundfish stocks; clarified goals and performance standard for groundfish monitoring programs; revisions to the allocation of GB yellowtail flounder to the scallop fishery; and establishment of sub-ACLs of GB yellowtail flounder and SNE/MA windowpane flounder for the scallop and other non-groundfish fisheries. NMFS also approved revisions to recreational and commercial accountability measures (AMs), including amendments to existing AMs for windowpane flounder, ocean pout, and Atlantic halibut, and new “reactive” AMs for Atlantic wolffish and SNE/MA winter flounder, to address a remand by the U.S. District Court of Appeals. NMFS disapproved some measures in Framework 48: A provision for cost-sharing of monitoring costs between the industry and NMFS; a provision to delay industry-funded monitoring to FY 2014; finer scale discard rate strata for GB yellowtail flounder; and a provision to remove requirements for groundfish trawlers to stow their gear when transiting closed areas. Through this interim final rule, NMFS also withdrew a proposed correction to the regulations specific to monitoring of the Eastern U.S./Canada quotas, and accepted additional public comment on this issue. These measures were necessary to meet the requirements of the FMP and the MSA, most notably preventing overfishing, ensuring that management measures are based on the best available science, and mitigating, to the extent practicable, potential negative economic impacts from reductions in catch limits anticipated for fishing year FY 2013. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

46. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery. RIN 0648-BC97 (78 FR 26172; May 3, 2013). NMFS partially approved Framework Adjustment 50 (Framework 50) to the NE Multispecies FMP, and implemented the approved measures. NMFS also implemented three parallel emergency actions to set FY 2013 catch limits for GB yellowtail flounder and white hake, and to modify the maximum GOM cod carryover available to sectors from FY 2012 to FY 2013. Framework 50 set specifications for FYs 2013-2015, including 2013 TACs for U.S./Canada stocks, and revised the rebuilding program and management measures for Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) winter flounder. This final rule also implemented FY 2013 management measures for the recreational and common pool fisheries and clarified how to account for sector carryover for FY 2013 and for FY 2014 and beyond. These actions were necessary to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, achieve OY, and ensure that management measures were based on the best available scientific information. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

47. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Exempted Fishery for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery in the Waters East and West of Cape Cod, MA. RIN 0648-BC50 (78 FR 26518; May 7, 2013). This interim final rule modified the regulations implementing the NE Multispecies FMP to allow vessels fishing with a NE Federal spiny dogfish permit to fish in an area east of Cape Cod, MA (Eastern Exemption Area) with gillnet and longline gear, from June through December and with handgear from June through August, and to fish in Cape Cod Bay (Western Exemption Area) with longline gear and handgear from June through August. This action allowed vessels to harvest spiny dogfish in a manner that is consistent with the bycatch reduction objectives of the NE Multispecies FMP. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

48. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program. RIN 0648-BA82 (78 FR 28523; May 15, 2013). NMFS issued regulations to implement Amendment 41 to the FMP for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. These regulations amended the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (CR Program) by establishing a process whereby holders of regionally designated IFQ and IPQ in six CR Program fisheries may receive an exemption from regional delivery requirements in the North or South Regions. The six CR Program fisheries were Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea snow crab, Saint Matthew Island blue king crab, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Western Aleutian Islands red king crab, and Pribilof Islands red and blue king crab. This action was necessary to mitigate disruptions in a CR Program fishery that prevented participants from complying with regional delivery requirements. This action was intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the FMP, and other applicable law.

49. Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Revised Maximum Retainable Amounts of Groundfish; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. RIN 0648-BA43 (78 FR 29248; May 20, 2013). NMFS issued a regulation to increase the maximum retainable amounts (MRAs) of groundfish using arrowtooth flounder ( Atheresthes stomias ) and Kamchatka flounder ( Atheresthes evermanni ) as basis species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action allowed the use of BSAI arrowtooth flounder and Kamchatka flounder as basis species for the retention of species closed to directed fishing and was necessary to improve retention of otherwise marketable groundfish in these BSAI fisheries. This action also included four regulatory amendments related to harvest management of Kamchatka flounder. Two amendments were necessary to account for Kamchatka flounder in the same manner as arrowtooth flounder in the BSAI and to aid in the recordkeeping, reporting, and catch accounting of flatfish in the BSAI. The third amendment was necessary to provide NMFS the flexibility to allocate Kamchatka flounder (and other species in the future) to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program in the annual harvest specifications. Through this action, NMFS intended to promote the goals and objectives of the MSA, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, and other applicable law.

50. Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Amendment 5a. RIN 0648-BB29 (78 FR 40318; July 3, 2013). The final rule implemented the Final Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMSFMP. In developing Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS examined a full range of management alternatives to maintain rebuilding of sandbar sharks; end overfishing and rebuild scalloped hammerhead and Atlantic blacknose sharks; and establish a TAC and commercial quota and recreational measures for Gulf of Mexico blacknose and blacktip sharks, consistent with the MSA, and other applicable laws. This final rule implemented the final conservation and management measures in Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP for sandbar, scalloped hammerhead, blacknose, and Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks. This final rule also announced the revised 2013 annual regional quotas for aggregated large coastal sharks (LCS), hammerhead, Gulf of Mexico blacktip, blacknose, and non-blacknose small coastal sharks (SCS). These changes could have affected all commercial and recreational fishermen who fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.

51. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Parrotfish Management Measures in St. Croix. RIN 0648-BC20 (78 FR 45894; July 30, 2013). NMFS issued this final rule to implement management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 4 to the FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. This rule established minimum size limits for parrotfish in the EEZ off St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The purpose of this final rule was to provide protection from harvest to parrotfish and to assist the stock in achieving OY. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

52. Highly Migratory Species: 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 8. RIN 0648-BC31 (78 FR 52012; August 21, 2013). This final rule implemented Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP. Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP provided additional opportunities for U.S. fishermen to harvest swordfish using selective gears that are low in bycatch, given their rebuilt status and increased availability. This final rule created new and modified commercial fishing vessel permits that allow permit holders to retain and sell a limited number of swordfish caught on rod and reel, handline, harpoon, green-stick, or bandit gear. Specific management measures under this final action included the establishment of a new open access commercial swordfish permit, modification of HMS Charter/Headboat permit regulations to allow for the commercial retention of swordfish on non-for-hire trips, regional swordfish retention limits for the new and modified permits, gear authorizations, and reporting requirements. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

53. Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 48, Framework Adjustment 50; 2013 Sector Operations Plans, Contracts, and Allocation Annual Catch Entitlements. RIN 0648-BC27 (78 FR 53363; August 29, 2013). This final rule finalized interim measures put in place for the May 1, 2013, start of the NE multispecies fishing year. This action was intended to do the following: Finalize interim rule measures put in place by FW 48, FW 50, and in the 2013 Sector Operations Plan rulemakings; respond to public comments received on the interim measures; and notify the public of changes being made to Eastern U.S./Canada Area quota monitoring and associated reporting requirements. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

54. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Vessel Monitoring Systems. RIN 0648-BD24 (78 FR 68757; November 15, 2013). NMFS modified the reporting requirements for vessels required to use VMS units in Atlantic HMS fisheries. This final rule required vessel owners or operators, who have been issued HMS permits and were required to use VMS, to provide hourly position reports 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7) via VMS. The final rule also allowed the vessel owners or operators of such vessels to declare out of the HMS fishery when not fishing for or retaining HMS for a period of time encompassing two or more trips. This final action continued to provide NOAA Office of Law Enforcement needed information on the target fishery and gear possessed in order to facilitate enforcement of closed areas and other HMS regulations, while reducing the reporting burden on vessel owners and operators. This action brought HMS fisheries regulations in line with VMS regulations in other fisheries. This rule affected all owners and/or operators of permitted vessels that fish for HMS and are required to use VMS. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

55. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Establish Funding Responsibilities for the Electronic Logbook Program. RIN 0648-BD41 (78 FR 78776; December 27, 2013). NMFS established funding responsibilities for an upgrade to the shrimp electronic logbook (ELB) program as described in a framework action to the FMP for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Newer and more efficient ELB units have been purchased by NMFS for the Gulf shrimp fleet and are available for installation on Gulf shrimp vessels. Therefore, NMFS established a cost-sharing program to fund the ELB program. NMFS paid for the software development, data storage, effort estimation analysis, and archival activities for the new ELB units, and selected vessel permit holders in the Gulf shrimp fishery paid for installation and maintenance of the new ELB units and for the data transmission from the ELB units to a NOAA server. The purpose of these changes was to ensure that management of the shrimp fishery is based upon the best scientific information available and that bycatch is minimized to the extent practicable. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.

56. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 27. RIN 0648-BD05 (78 FR 78770; December 27, 2013). NMFS issued this final rule to implement Amendment 27 (Amendment 27) to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Amendment 27 and this final rule extended the South Atlantic Council's management responsibility for Nassau grouper into the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) EEZ; increased the number of allowable crew members to four on dual-permitted snapper-grouper vessels ( i.e., vessels holding a South Atlantic Charter Vessel/Headboat Permit for Snapper-Grouper and a commercial South Atlantic Unlimited or a 225-Pound Trip Limit Snapper-Grouper Permit) that were fishing commercially; removed the prohibition on retaining any fish under the aggregate bag limit for grouper and tilefish or the vermilion snapper bag limit by captains and crew of federally permitted for-hire vessels; modified the snapper-grouper framework procedures to allow ABCs, ACLs, and annual catch targets (ACTs) to be adjusted via an abbreviated framework process; and removed blue runner from the FMP. The purposes of this final rule were to streamline management of Nassau grouper, improve vessel safety for dual-permitted vessels, implement consistent regulations regarding captains and crew retention limits for snapper-grouper species, expedite adjustments to snapper-grouper catch limits when new scientific information becomes available, and minimize socio-economic impacts to fishermen who harvest and sell blue runner. This action was conducted by NMFS under the authority of the MSA.