TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-39, dated November 10, 2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-39) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2022 (87 FR 19815). The NPRM was prompted by the discovery that OWEED handle covers were difficult to open on some airplanes. An investigation revealed that brackets of certain OWEED handle covers are prone to flexure, thus increasing the force necessary to remove the OWEED handle cover beyond design requirements. As a result, the OWEED handle covers must be removed in order to access the emergency exit, which could delay passenger evacuation. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the existing OWEED handle cover brackets with newly designed OWEED handle cover brackets and installing a placard regarding this replacement, as specified in TCCA AD CF-2021-39.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the increased force necessary to remove the OWEED handle cover to access the emergency exit, which could hinder passenger evacuation in emergency. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA received a comment from an individual who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA also received a comment from Delta Airlines (DAL). The following presents that comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

DAL found that the SB Incorporation Placard is identified as two different part numbers, CDPL604-5 and CDPL604-5-F493000-25-01, in Safran Service Bulletin F493000-25-01, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2020, which is referenced in TCCA AD CF-2021-39. The Safran component maintenance manual (CMM) states “true part number is CDPL604-5-F493000-25-01, added by service bulletin F493000-25-01” in the nomenclature for part number “CDPL604-5F49300” described as “placard, service bulletin incorporation (bonded).” The Safran CMM has another part number that begins with “CDPL604-5,” but with a different suffix. The service bulletin does not state the full true part number CDPL604-5-F493000-25-01. DAL requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised to add an Exception that clarifies the part numbers.

The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA agrees that two part numbers, CDPL604-5 and CDPL604-5-F493000-25-01, were identified for the SB Incorporation Placard, and that both part numbers are correct and represent the same part. However, the FAA disagrees with the need to revise paragraph (h) of this AD to provide further clarification of the part numbers. The replacement kit includes the correct placard for installation. This AD has not been changed with regard to this request.

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

TCCA AD CF-2021-39 specifies procedures for replacing the existing OWEED handle cover brackets with newly designed OWEED handle cover brackets and installing placards regarding this replacement.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2022 (87 FR 35125). The NPRM was prompted by TCCA AD CF-2021-33, dated October 6, 2021, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, (referred to after this as the MCAI).

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the rudder PCU load limiters for correct crimping of the end cap, and replacing any defective rudder PCU load limiter. For certain airplanes, the FAA also proposed to require repetitive testing of the rudder PCU load limiter for correct functioning, and applicable corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address defective rudder PCU load limiters, which could result in incorrect transmission of the pilot command, and loss of control of the rudder.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0603.

The FAA received comments from NetJets and one individual. The commenters noted the following typographical errors in the proposed AD:

• For serial numbers 5701 through 5988, the service bulletin reference should be “605-27-010” instead of “650-27-010.”

• For serial numbers 6050 through 6158, the service bulletin reference should be “650-27-003” instead of “605-27-003.”

The FAA has corrected these errors in the Related Service Information section and in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Bombardier has issued the following service information.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-27-039, Revision 01, dated April 6, 2021.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0776, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0648, dated December 7, 2020.

This service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the rudder PCU load limiters for correct crimping of the end cap, and replacing any defective PCU load limiter. These documents are distinct because they apply to different airplane configurations.

Bombardier has also released the following service information.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-27-010, dated December 7, 2020.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-27-003, dated December 7, 2020.

This service information describes procedures for repetitive testing of certain PCU load limiters for proper functioning and applicable corrective actions (performing the one-time inspection of the rudder PCU load limiters for correct crimping of the end cap, and replacing any defective PCU load limiter). This service information also describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the rudder PCU load limiters for correct crimping of the end cap, and replacing any defective PCU load limiter, which terminates the repetitive tests. These documents are distinct because they apply to different airplane configurations.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 379 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition replacement required based on the results of any required inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2022 (87 FR 43462). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-05, dated February 24, 2022, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that insufficient clearance exists between the surrounding structure/skin of the aircraft and select bleed air ducts that supply the WIPS in the rear fuselage on the aircraft. Without sufficient clearance, the high pressure (HP) shroud could interfere with the surrounding structures and possibly compromise the HP ducting shroud's capability to provide bleed air leak routing, which could result in a bleed air leak being undetected. A significant undetected bleed air leak could expose the surrounding structure to heat stress, resulting in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the bleed air duct and surrounding structure for minimum clearance and damage, and applicable corrective actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0886.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-36-7502, dated October 28, 2020. This service information describes procedures for inspecting the bleed air duct and surrounding structure for minimum clearance and damage (wear and chafing), and corrective actions. Corrective actions include adjusting the ductwork if clearance is below the minimum required, and repairing any damage. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, and B4-203 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2022 (87 FR 42970). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2022-0004, dated January 11, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0004), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI terminates the inspections of the rear lower corner of the flight compartment aft window at fuselage station (STA) 972/frame (FR) 10, as required by paragraphs (a)(8), (d), and (e) of FAA AD 2000-10-01, Amendment 39-11725 (65 FR 33441, May 24, 2000), which corresponds to EASA AD 2022-0004.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time check for previously accomplished repairs of the window pane and adjacent fuselage panel, and applicable corrective actions, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0004. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0879.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0004 specifies procedures for a one-time check for previously accomplished repairs of the window pane and adjacent fuselage panel, and applicable corrective actions. If no repair is identified, the corrective actions are accomplishing repetitive ultrasonic inspections of the window frame, and detailed inspections of the adjacent fuselage panel for cracking, and repair of any cracking. If any repair is identified, the corrective action is obtaining and accomplishing further instructions.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-16, dated April 26, 2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-16) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0011.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2022 (87 FR 3716). The NPRM was prompted by reports of corrosion on fuel clamshell couplings installed in the fuel tank, and a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require removing and replacing the fuel clamshell couplings on certain airplanes, and revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address corroded fuel clamshell couplings in the fuel tank, which, if not removed and replaced, could reduce the ability of the fuel coupling to conduct lightning current and possibly lead to arcing and subsequent fuel tank ignition in the event of a lightning strike. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received one additional comment from MHI RJ Aviation. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

MHI RJ Aviation requested that the proposed AD be revised to include provisional statement allowing the incorporation of TRs in their respective manuals. MHI RJ Aviation conceded that the provision that allows this may be included in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, but noted that it is not clear. MHI RJ Aviation requested that the FAA consider adding a provision to avoid requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) from operators. MHI RJ Aviation provided the status of each TR and whether or not the information in the TR has been incorporated into the MHI RJ Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM).

The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraphs (h) and (j) of this AD require operators to “incorporate the information specified in” CRJ Series Regional Jet TR ALI-0740, dated October 13, 2020; CRJ Series Regional Jet TR ALI-0741, dated October 13, 2020; CRJ700/900/1000 Series Regional Jet TR ALI-0751, dated April 8, 2021; TR 2S4-002, dated September 1, 2021; and TR 2S4-003, dated September 1, 2021. Therefore, as long as the information in the applicable MRM is identical to the information in the applicable TR, the operator may incorporate either the applicable MRM or the applicable TR to show compliance with this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

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

MHI RJ Aviation has issued Service Bulletin 601R-28-068, Revision A, dated December 21, 2020; and Service Bulletin 670BA-28-041, Revision B, dated January 27, 2021. This service information describes procedures for removing and replacing the fuel clamshell couplings. These documents are distinct because they apply to different airplane models.

MHI RJ Aviation has also issued TR 2S4-002, dated September 1, 2021. This service information describes a Critical Design Configuration Control Limitation (CDCCL) item for bonding of fuel and vent lines for lightning protection to preclude a spark.

MHI RJ Aviation has also issued the following TRs, which describe airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems.

• TR 2S4-003, dated September 1, 2021; CRJ Series Regional Jet TR ALI-0741, dated October 13, 2020; and CRJ700/900/1000 Series Regional Jet TR ALI-0751, dated April 8, 2021, which describe a procedure for removing and replacing self-bonding couplings in the fuel tank.

• CRJ Series Regional Jet TR ALI-0740, dated October 13, 2020, which describes a CDCCL item for bonding of fuel and vent lines for lightning protection to preclude a spark.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 914 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ellsworth Municipal Airport, Ellsworth, KS, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (87 FR 11361; March 1, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0132 to establish Class E airspace at Ellsworth, KS. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above within a 6.5-mile radius of Ellsworth Municipal Airport, Ellsworth, KS.

This action is necessary to support new public instrument procedures at Ellsworth Municipal Airport.

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

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

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

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

Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353a) describes the conditions that must be satisfied for drug products compounded by a licensed pharmacist in a State licensed pharmacy or a Federal facility, or a licensed physician, to be exempt from the following sections of the FD&C Act: (1) section 501(a)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements), (2) section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use), and (3) section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of drugs under new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications).

One of the conditions to qualify for the exemptions listed in section 503A of the FD&C Act is that: (1) the drug product is compounded in a State that has entered into an MOU with the FDA that addresses the distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded drug products interstate and provides for appropriate investigation by a State agency of complaints relating to compounded drug products distributed outside such State or (2) if the drug product is compounded in a State that has not entered into such an MOU, the licensed pharmacist, pharmacy, or physician does not distribute, or cause to be distributed, compounded drug products out of the State in which they are compounded in quantities that exceed 5 percent of the total prescription orders dispensed or distributed by such pharmacy or physician (statutory 5 percent limit) (see section 503A(b)(3)(B)(i) and (ii) of the FD&C Act).

In the Federal Register of October 27, 2020 (85 FR 68074), FDA announced the availability of a standard MOU describing the responsibilities of a State Board of Pharmacy or other appropriate State agency that chooses to sign the standard MOU in investigating and responding to complaints related to drug products compounded in such State and distributed outside such State and in addressing the interstate distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded human drug products.

In the October 27, 2020, Federal Register notice, FDA stated that it was providing a 365-day period that was scheduled to end on October 27, 2021, for States to decide whether to sign the standard MOU before FDA intended to begin enforcing the statutory 5 percent limit in States that do not sign the standard MOU. Soon after announcing the availability of the standard MOU, FDA was sued by several compounding pharmacies regarding the standard MOU in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ( Wellness Pharmacy, Inc. v. Becerra (D.D.C. Sep. 21, 2021)).

In the Federal Register of August 9, 2021 (86 FR 43550), FDA extended the period to October 27, 2022, before FDA intends to begin enforcing the statutory 5 percent limit in States that do not sign the standard MOU.

On September 21, 2021, the Court remanded the standard MOU to FDA to either certify that it will not have a significant economic effect on small businesses or prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. To undertake this analysis more fully and ensure a robust framework for these important public health protections, FDA intends to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking regarding certain distributions of compounded human drug products under section 503A of the FD&C Act. FDA considers the standard MOU published in October 2020 to be suspended. This means that during the rulemaking process, FDA will not enter into new agreements with States based on the October 2020 standard MOU. FDA does not expect States that have signed the October 2020 standard MOU to carry out the activities described in the MOU. The October 2020 standard MOU will be updated based on the content of a final rule, and FDA intends to announce a new opportunity for all States to consider and sign the updated standard MOU.

FDA is now extending the period before FDA intends to begin enforcing the statutory 5 percent limit in States that have not entered into a standard MOU with FDA until the effective date of a final rule regarding certain distributions of compounded human drug products under section 503A of the FD&C Act and publication of an updated standard MOU. 1

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1103, Table 1 to § 100.1103, Item number 5 for the Sacramento Ironman Swim regulated area from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 23, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within Northern California, § 100.1103, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Sacramento Ironman Swim which encompasses portions of the American River and Sacramento River. During the enforcement period, the regulated area will be in effect in the navigable waters of the American River and Sacramento River from Township 9 Park to North of Tower Bridge.

During the enforcement period, under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1103(b), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander (PATCOM) or any other Official Patrol, defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the regulated area. During the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel that participates in the marine event within the regulated area, you must follow the route established by the marine event sponsor, and comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or other Official Patrol. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notification, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because that is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM, because we must establish this safety zone by October 10, 2022, to ensure the safety of response personnel and mariners during repairs of the damaged pipeline.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the pipeline repair operations for the damaged pipeline.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the pipeline repair and potential oil recovery operations in the vicinity of the damaged pipeline will be a safety concern for anyone within a 750-yard radius from coordinates 33°38′51.072″ N, 118°06′43.146″ W. This rule is necessary to safeguard the public during repair operations; it would be impracticable for the Coast Guard to provide a public comment period on due to the updated repair schedule.

This rule establishes a safety zone effective from October 10, 2022, to December 24, 2022. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor in an area bound within a 750-yard radius from surface to sea bottom from 33°38′51.072″ N, 118°06′43.146″ W. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach on VHF-FM Channel 16 or call the 24-hour Command Center at (310) 521-3801. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate for the enforcement times and dates for the safety zone.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a 750-yard area of Newport Beach, CA for three months. The zone will be enforced 24 hours per day, but vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone effective on October 10, 2022, until December 24, 2022, within a 750-yard radius from coordinates 33°38′51.072″ N, 118°06′43.146″ W. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if your facility submits annual reports under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11023, and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106, to EPA and States or Tribes of the facility's environmental releases or other waste management quantities of covered chemicals. (Pursuant to 40 CFR 372.30(a), facilities located in Indian country are required to report to the appropriate tribal government official and EPA instead of to the State and EPA. See April 19, 2012 (77 FR 23409) (FRL-9660-9)). To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 372, subpart B. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 113310, 211130*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 541713*, 541715*, or 811490*. (*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.)

• Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (all are limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. ) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems).

• Federal facilities.

• Any facility which the EPA Administrator has determined to be subject to TRI reporting requirements under the discretionary authority of EPCRA section 313(b)(2).

EPA is taking this action under EPCRA sections 313(g)(1) and 328, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1) and 11048.

In general, EPCRA section 313 requires owners and operators of covered facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above specified threshold levels to report certain facility specific information about such chemicals, including the annual releases and other waste management quantities. EPCRA section 313(g)(1) requires EPA to publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for these reporting purposes, and it also prescribes, in general terms, the types of information that must be submitted on the form. Congress also granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully implement the statute, to ensure the release forms are available to inform the public of toxic chemical releases and “to assist governmental agencies, researchers, and other persons in the conduct of research and data gathering” (EPCRA section 313(h), 42 U.S.C. 11023(h)).

EPCRA section 328 (42 U.S.C. 10048) states that: “The Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.”

EPA is codifying the definition of “parent company” for TRI reporting purposes. Under this rule, EPA is clarifying existing guidance and providing reporting clarity for facilities, including those owned by corporate subsidiaries, multiple owners, foreign entities, or that are publicly owned. EPA is also requiring facilities to report their highest-level foreign parent company, when applicable, beginning with Reporting Year 2023, for forms due by July 1, 2024 and for each subsequent reporting year. With this rule, the definition of “parent company” for TRI reporting is more closely aligned with definitions under other reporting programs, including the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule (40 CFR part 711) and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) rule (40 CFR part 98).

The definition of “parent company” within TRI reporting regulations is the highest-level company with the largest ownership interest in the TRI facility as of December 31 of the reporting year. This addresses the following ownership scenarios:

• A facility is owned by a single company, which is not owned by another company;

• A facility is owned by a single company, which is owned by another company;

• A facility is owned by multiple companies, including companies that are themselves owned by other entities;

• A facility is owned by a joint venture or cooperative;

• A facility is owned, at least in part, by a foreign company; and

• A facility is owned by the Federal Government, or a state, tribal, or municipal government.

EPA is also requiring facilities reporting to TRI to use standardized naming conventions for parent company reporting, as provided in the annual TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI), available as a downloadable Excel file (“Standardized Parent Company Names”) at https://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. These naming conventions address common formatting discrepancies, such as punctuation, capitalization, and abbreviations (for example, “Corp” for “Corporation”).

Facilities required to report to TRI must also report their parent companies and identify whether any reportable off-site transfers of TRI chemicals are sent to a facility also owned by that same parent company. Reporting facilities rely on the TRI RFI to report this information and to address questions, including what constitutes a “parent company” for TRI reporting purposes. The RFI does not address all scenarios applicable to many TRI facilities, including facilities owned by subsidiaries of larger companies; facilities with multiple owners, none of whom are a majority owner; joint ventures that are not purely 50:50; facilities directly owned by foreign entities; and, publicly-owned facilities. Because the Agency's longstanding guidance has repeatedly resulted in reporter confusion in situations such as a facility having multiple owners, or when no single entity owns at least 50 percent of a facility, EPA is taking this action to provide certainty over what must be reported for this data element. In addition to greater regulatory certainty and clarity for facilities, the Agency believes this will also provide time-saving benefits for both EPA and the reporting community. In previous years, the Agency has found that many facilities, relying only on a broad definition of “parent company” in the RFI, inaccurately report parent company information to TRI, resulting in repeated efforts to contact individual facilities to verify their facility's ownership structure after each reporting year.

EPA is also requiring the use of a standardized naming convention for parent companies, including identical punctuation and capitalization styles or using common abbreviations (for example, reporting “Inc” for “Incorporation”) (Ref. 1). The conventions have been included in TRI guidance for several reporting cycles, and their inclusion in the CFR would formalize the requirement to adhere to them for the purpose of TRI data harmonization. The naming convention is primarily a tool to streamline the data quality and aggregation activities on submitted data. Thus, TRI reports and EPA databases more accurately reflect which facilities are owned by the same parent company, rather than counting parent companies reported with variations in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, or abbreviations as unique companies.

EPA is also finalizing the requirement for TRI facilities to submit their highest-level foreign parent company, where applicable. EPA recognizes that there are a variety of ownership situations for TRI facilities. In some situations, a TRI facility is owned, at least in part, by a company outside of the United States. In these cases, the facility is required to report on both their highest-level U.S.-based and foreign parent companies, as applicable. Collecting the highest-level foreign parent company name in addition to the highest level-U.S.-based parent company name ensures greater data consistency for TRI data users than just including one name ( i.e., either the highest-level U.S.-based company, or the foreign parent company). TRI data users include researchers, industry, the public, and other EPA and government reporting programs. The distinct data elements for U.S.-based and foreign parent company names enable data users to include or exclude any foreign parent companies from analyses or searches as they choose. Conversely, allowing either a U.S.-based or foreign parent company name to be reported for the same data element ( i.e., a single parent company field, regardless of location) would prevent TRI's public data tools from distinguishing companies that are owned by U.S.-based entities from those that are foreign-owned. This single data element would prevent any data user from reasonably and efficiently determining where the company is based, unless further data of the listed parent company, such as address, was also required.

EPA is finalizing the requirement for reporting a foreign parent company to begin with Reporting Year 2023, for forms due by July 1, 2024. The later date for this requirement will both enable EPA to update the TRI-MEweb reporting software with the beginning of a new reporting year, and the reporting community to familiarize themselves with the new data requirement.

Ultimately, this rule more closely aligns the definition of parent company for TRI reporters with the definition codified by the CDR Program at 40 CFR 711.3. Differences in this proposed definition and the definition codified in the CDR regulations result from differences in the respective programs' longstanding terms of art ( e.g., TRI uses “facilities,” whereas CDR uses “sites”), as well as from edits intended to provide greater clarity in the TRI context. For instance, the TRI definition slightly differs from CDR regulations in the paragraph referring to 50:50 joint ventures (40 CFR 372.3) in order to clarify that a joint venture should be reported as its own parent company, irrespective of whether any of the joint participants is owned by a higher-level company. Nonetheless, this codified definition of “parent company” under TRI is much closer to the codified definition under CDR. Having nearly identical definitions between the TRI and CDR programs supports EPA's ability to compare the databases for data quality purposes. Additionally, the GHGRP has codified the definition of parent company at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(11). While the GHGRP definition of this data element has some differences from the CDR definition and this rule's definition, there are many similarities across the definitions, including the need to report the highest-level company in the facility's ownership hierarchy and the requirement to refer to reporting instructions for standardized naming conventions. Thus, this definition and reporting requirement is similar to those already codified under other EPA reporting rules. This rule promotes understanding of the data element within the regulated community, especially among those facilities which also report to CDR and are already familiar with the codified definition.

EPA has evaluated the potential incremental impacts of this rule. The details are presented in the economic analysis prepared for the rule (Ref. 2), which is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in this unit.

EPA estimates the incremental impacts across all facilities to be up to $1,239,572 in the first year, and up to $14,238 every subsequent year, with no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. The paperwork burden is estimated to be up to 17,833 hours the first year, and up to 205 hours every subsequent year. However, these estimated impacts do not include the cost and time savings for facilities who have previously had difficulty interpreting EPA's guidance on this data element, nor do these impacts include the reduced need for communication between the Agency and facilities in the annual effort to standardize parent company names. The benefits of the rule are described qualitatively in the economic analysis, as some of the benefits are unable to be monetized (such as the improved ability of various TRI data users to analyze parent company-level information thoroughly); thus, the estimated incremental impact listed does not factor in benefits. EPA estimates that a total of 21,154 entities ( i.e., all TRI reporting facilities) are impacted by this rule.

As discussed in the proposed rule (Ref. 3), EPA proposed to codify a definition of “parent company” for TRI reporting purposes and to require the reporting of the foreign parent company when applicable. In the proposed rule, EPA described how codifying this definition provides greater clarity to TRI reporting facilities and greater consistency with other reporting programs. While EPA proposed adding a data element for the highest-level foreign parent company, the Agency specifically requested public comment on this proposed additional data element. The proposed rule Economic Analysis (Ref. 4) also provided estimated burden and costs associated with three different scenarios: simply codifying a definition of “parent company” and not requiring the reporting of foreign parent companies; codifying a definition of “parent company” and requiring only the reporting of the highest-level parent company of the facility, which may be a U.S. or foreign company; and codifying a definition of “parent company” and requiring the reporting of the U.S. parent company and foreign parent company, if applicable.

In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the incremental burden of the action, under Option 3 which would require reporting both the highest-level U.S. parent company and foreign parent company, if applicable. The estimated incremental burden was 18,091 hours across the entire reporting universe of 21,458 facilities in the first year, while subsequent reporting years would see an impact of 210 hours.

In response to the proposed rule, EPA received four public comments. The commenters included two individuals (one anonymous), one law firm on behalf of a client, and one state environmental agency. This unit summarizes the comments received and EPA's response to each comment.

Comment #1. One private citizen was supportive of the rule to promote corporate accountability. The commenter also suggested that TRI track carbon dioxide emissions.

EPA response. Although carbon dioxide is not a TRI listed chemical, and therefore TRI does not track carbon dioxide emissions, EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the rule. EPA also points out that the Agency has other information reporting programs which may provide such data, such as the GHGRP which tracks facility-level emissions from the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

Comment #2. The anonymous commenter was critical of the rule, stating that codifying this data element only serves to boost EPA's enforcement authority against facilities who misreport their parent company name. The commenter also questioned EPA's claims of how the proposed rule may improve TRI data quality and reduce burden for correcting submitted parent company information. The commenter also thought that requiring facilities to report the foreign parent in addition to the U.S.-based parent would be burdensome for the respondent and should not be required.

EPA response. EPA appreciates this perspective and understands that requiring corporate structure data elements for reporting to TRI may cause minimal work to each facility in the first year of reporting. EPA respectfully disagrees that codifying these data elements will not lead to improved data quality outcomes. Rather, EPA's experience with TRI facility submissions for parent company information is that lack of a codified definition results in inconsistent data. EPA believes that without a codified definition, there would be continued inconsistency in naming conventions, conflicting interpretations of the data elements, and an inability to perform trend analysis across all TRI facilities.

Comment #3. The law firm commenter generally supports the rule and encourages TRI facilities to reduce their toxic chemical releases. The commenter also advocated for clearer guidance for determining which entity should report under TRI for those facilities with complex corporate structures ( i.e., when the facility owner and operator are different entities, and the facility owner does not have operating or permitting control).

EPA response. EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the rule. In response to the commenter's questions related to reporting responsibilities between different facility owners and operators, EPA would direct the commenter to the language in EPCRA and in the TRI implementing regulations, as well as longstanding guidance documents, for clarity on which entity is responsible for reporting. For instance, under ECPRA section 313(b)(1), TRI reporting requirements apply to both “owners and operators of [covered facilities]”. EPA has also codified this requirement at 40 CFR 372.5. Additionally, TRI reporting guidance materials reiterate that both the owner and operator of a covered facility are subject to reporting requirements, and both may be liable for penalties if no reports are received from a covered facility. However, for practical purposes, EPA believes the operator is generally more likely to have necessary information for TRI reporting. Readers are directed to TRI Q&As for additional information, including Q&A 86 (Ref. 5).

Comment #4. The state environmental agency commenter did not support the rule, stating that EPA's focus on this data element is “misplaced” in light of “ongoing misperception” caused by the TRI. The commenter submitted comments on TRI data including that reported releases do not distinguish between permitted and regulated releases (such as to POTWs or waste storage areas) and unauthorized releases. The commenter requested that EPA distinguish those types of releases in the TRI data by collecting and reporting releases by percentage of regulated releases. The commenter also suggested that EPA focus efforts on certain entities including plastics, pharmaceuticals, and other manufacturers.

EPA response. EPA appreciates the concerns expressed by the commenter and their depth of knowledge regarding the TRI program. However, the concerns outlined in their comments are beyond the scope of the proposed rule.

EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed. The Agency also updated the estimated incremental impacts of this action based on 2022 wage rates and the number of TRI reporting facilities for Reporting Year 2020, the most recent year for which EPA has complete data at this time (Ref. 2). EPA considered public comments received and the estimated incremental costs of the three options discussed in the proposed rule, including the addition of a data requirement for a highest-level foreign parent company. The economic impact analysis demonstrates that the costs of requiring both a U.S.-based and foreign parent company are minimal, especially with the use of TRI-MEweb, EPA's web-based TRI reporting tool. When facilities input their parent company(ies), the information is only needed once to apply across all reporting forms, and information submitted in previous years can be imported to forms submitted for subsequent years if the information has not changed. Thus, TRI facilities need only to provide this information once, unless and until the appropriate parent company(ies) changes. Thus, TRI facilities must report their highest-level U.S.-based parent companies, following the definition of “parent company” as codified in 40 CFR 372, beginning with Reporting Year 2022, for which reports are due by July 1, 2023. TRI facilities must also report their highest-level foreign parent company, if applicable, beginning with Reporting Year 2023, for which reports are due by July 1, 2024.

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

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

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

The information collection activities in this final rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared is assigned EPA ICR No. 2597.02 and identified by OMB Control No. 2070-0216 (Ref. 6). You can find a copy of the ICR in the rulemaking docket and it is briefly summarized in this unit. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2), as appropriate under 40 CFR 372. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier notification and petitions under OMB Control number 2070-0212 (EPA ICR No. 2613.04) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428.11). As such, once this ICR is approved, EPA intends to ask OMB to amend the existing ICR to include the following additional details:

Respondents/affected entities: See Unit I.A. of this document. This action will not change the universe of TRI reporting facilities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (EPCRA section 313).

Estimated number of respondents: 21,154 facilities.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: Across all facilities, the total first year burden hours will be up to17,833 hours and up to 205 burden hours every subsequent year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: Up to $1,239,572 in the first year and up to $14,238 every subsequent year. This estimate includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

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

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule has no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule.

The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are TRI facilities, which include small privately-owned facilities and municipal government-owned facilities who are required to report to EPA under EPCRA section 313. Based on the results of the small entity analysis, a total of 7,669 small parent entities are estimated to be parent companies of TRI reporting facilities (7,653 private businesses and 16 municipalities). The Agency has determined that all small entities impacted by this rule will incur compliance costs less than one percent of revenues under the rule and only in the first year following this rule's effective date. Details of this analysis are presented in the Economic Analysis of the final rule (Ref. 2), which is available in the docket. The Agency has therefore concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, nor would it change the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes. This rule only impacts Indian tribes if they own or operate a TRI reporting facility and are required to report to EPA under EPCRA section 313. Because TRI facilities owned or operated by public entities do not have foreign parent companies, this rule does not impose any additional reporting requirements on those facilities or public entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021) because this rule does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

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

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 372 as follows:

On August 15, 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 54389) implementing the MMPA Import Provisions (16 U.S.C. 1371 (a)(2)). These provisions prohibit the import of fish or fish products from commercial fishing operations that result in the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in excess of United States standards. Specifically, this rule established conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory programs to address incidental and intentional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals (hereafter referred to as bycatch) in its fisheries producing fish and fish products exported to the United States.

Fish and fish products from export and exempt fisheries identified by the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries in the List of Foreign Fisheries (LOFF) can only be imported into the United States if the harvesting nation has applied for and received a Comparability Finding from NMFS. The 2016 final rule established procedures that a harvesting nation must follow, and conditions it must meet, to receive a Comparability Finding for a fishery. The rule also established provisions for intermediary nations to ensure that such nations do not import and re-export to the United States fish or fish products that are subject to an import prohibition applicable to the harvesting nation.

Under the MMPA Import Provisions, NMFS established an initial five-year exemption period for foreign nations to develop, as appropriate, fishery regulatory programs governing the bycatch of marine mammals that are comparable in effectiveness to U.S. regulations. During the exemption period, the prohibitions of the MMPA Import Provisions do not apply to imports from the harvesting nation. NMFS established the exemption period to provide nations with adequate time to assess marine mammal stocks, estimate bycatch, and develop regulatory programs to mitigate that bycatch.

NMFS issued an interim final rule on November 3, 2020 (85 FR 69515), to extend the exemption period and to allow more time for nations to implement regulatory programs and apply for comparability findings for their fisheries. Additional information on the basis for the extension was provided in the interim final rule and is not repeated here. The interim final rule established a 30-day comment period and NMFS considered those comments in making determinations about this subsequent final rule.

NMFS received submissions from three commenters on the interim final rule. Commenters included one non-governmental organization, one industry group, and one private citizen. One commenter raised an issue that was not germane to this action, because it addressed prior decision-making on the timeline of the previously-issued final rule implementing the MMPA Import Provisions (81 FR 54389; August 15, 2016). The other comments either supported or opposed the deadline extensions under the interim final rule. Comments received on the interim final rule are available for public review at https://www.regulations.gov/ under the docket identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2020-0127”. In the following sections, NMFS summarizes and responds to issues raised by commenters which are relevant to the 2020 decision to extend the exemption period.

Comment 1: One commenter supported the modification of deadlines under the MMPA Import Provisions. These modifications include: (1) extending the five-year exemption period by one year through December 31, 2022; and (2) changing the initial comparability finding application deadline from March 1 to November 30, 2021. Another commenter opposed both extensions, and urged the agency to maintain the original comparability finding application deadline of March 1, 2021, and the original exemption period end date of December 31, 2021, as established in the final rule implementing the MMPA Import Provisions (81 FR 54389; August 15, 2016).

Response: NMFS finds that extending the exemption period and the comparability finding application deadline is warranted and necessary due to delays in administrative actions attributable to diversion of governmental resources in response to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has caused significant strains on foreign nations' operations and disruptions in research, legislative and regulatory processes. Providing nations with additional time to implement regulatory programs will allow more nations to meet the requirements of the MMPA Import Provisions and thereby enhance marine mammal conservation.

Comment 1: One commenter noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the global seafood supply chain. They expressed concerns that, without the modification of the deadlines, imposition of trade restrictions could cause further disruptions in the seafood supply chain. They noted such an impact could also affect U.S. seafood exporters.

Response: NMFS concurs that the pandemic affected the global seafood supply chain and continues to affect supply chains with labor shortages and transit delays. As such, NMFS believes extending the deadlines can reduce further disruptions to trade and additional burdens on the supply chain.

Comment 2: One commenter expressed a concern that the original five-year exemption period in the 2016 final rule implementing the MMPA Import Provisions was a poor decision. The commenter also disagreed with the extension of the exemption period and the revised deadline for comparability finding applications as specified in the interim final rule. In allowing for the original exemption periods, they asserted NMFS' action led to the loss of millions of marine mammals, and that the decision to extend the exemption period and the deadline for comparability finding applications will lead to the killing of, or cause serious injury to, over half a million marine mammals.

Response: NMFS has no supporting information to conclude that extending the exemption period and the deadline for comparability finding applications will result in mortality or serious injury of over half a million marine mammals. On the contrary, NMFS believes that allowing more time for nations to develop regulatory programs governing the bycatch of marine mammals that are comparable in effectiveness to U.S. regulations is likely to achieve more robust conservation efforts for marine mammals. If nations are subject to the original deadlines, and cannot achieve comparable regulatory programs in time, trade restrictions could reduce the incentive for additional actions to conserve marine mammals. Further, it is not likely that loss of access to the U.S. market would, by itself, result in a shutdown of foreign fisheries that interact with marine mammals.

Comment 3: One commenter wrote that a procedure included in the final rule implementing the MMPA Import Provisions (81 FR 54389, 54393)—that NMFS will consult with nations unlikely to receive a comparability finding—is the sufficient mechanism to remedy any trouble to meet deadlines due to the pandemic instead of an extension.

Response: While NMFS will consult with countries unlikely to receive a comparability finding, having consultations without an extension continues to exert burdens on many nations due to delays cascading from the pandemic and subsequent labor shortages (including within foreign fishery ministries) and supply chain issues. As a result, nations need more time to establish comparable regulatory programs. The extension will increase the likelihood that nations will be able to implement comparable regulatory programs after consultations with NMFS.

Comment 1: One commenter wrote that NMFS' decision to issue the interim final rule was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. They asserted that NMFS violated the APA by waiving the usual 30-day opportunity for public comment, and that NMFS' application of the good cause exception under the APA is inappropriate.

Response: NMFS found good cause to issue the interim final rule to extend the exemption period and revise the deadline for applications without advance notice or the prior opportunity for public comment, as well as good cause to make the rule effective immediately without providing a 30-day delay. The basis for these findings was the need to expeditiously notify exporting nations of the extended time for submitting their comparability finding applications. Advance notice and prior opportunity for comment, or delayed effectiveness, would not have served the purposes of the extension and would have been contrary to the public interest in allowing exporting nations sufficient planning time to submit complete comparability finding applications so as to implement fully effective programs to mitigate marine mammal bycatch.

NMFS continued its outreach and technical consultations with seafood exporting nations during the extended exemption period to assist them in submitting applications for comparability findings by the extended deadline of November 30, 2021. Many nations submitted applications by the deadline and a few others were able to complete applications after follow-up consultations with NMFS. Ultimately, NMFS received applications for comparability findings from 132 nations and for 2,504 foreign fisheries.

NMFS staff reviewing applications have encountered a significant need to further consult with nations while evaluating the 2,504 foreign fisheries regarding the marine mammal bycatch mitigation programs described in their submissions. To complete review and evaluate comparability, staff have raised questions regarding species of marine mammals interacting with fishing gear, abundance estimates for those species, fishery monitoring programs to measure bycatch, and measures of effectiveness for the applied bycatch mitigation techniques. In addressing these questions, NMFS staff have experienced time delays in communicating with foreign counterparts and for translation of submitted responses.

Therefore, NMFS is extending the exemption period by one additional year. This change is warranted because of the need for clarity on all foreign fishery regulatory programs and for more time so that all applications from the 132 nations and the 2,504 foreign fisheries can be reviewed fairly and consistently.

This rule is published under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other applicable laws. Under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO 216-6), the promulgation of regulations that are procedural and administrative in nature are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment.

NOAA issues this final rule to extend the exemption period without a 30-day delay in effective date. A delay in effective date is not required under section 553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act because this final rule grants an exemption by extending the exemption period through December 31, 2023. This extension will give NMFS more time to ensure consistency in its evaluations of foreign nation regulatory programs and give exporting nations more time to adjust supply chains in response to any trade restrictions that might be applied. Furthermore, NOAA finds good cause to issue this final rule without a delay in effective date under section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act because such delay would not serve the purposes of the extension and would be contrary to the public interest in avoiding confusion about near term deadlines faced by exporting nations.

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

This final rule contains no new or revised collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the interim rule amending 50 CFR part 216, which was published at 85 FR 69515 on November 3, 2020, is adopted as final with the following change:

Gulf group cobia is managed under the CMP FMP in Federal waters from the Georgia/Florida border in the Atlantic to the Texas/Mexico border in the Gulf. The CMP FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

On July 7, 2022, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 32 and requested public comment (87 FR 40478; July 7, 2022). On July 18, 2022, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 32 and requested public comment (87 FR 42690; July 18, 2022). The proposed rule and Amendment 32 outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in Amendment 32 and implemented by this final rule is described below.

All weights in this proposed rule are in round and eviscerated weight combined, unless otherwise specified.

Under the CMP FMP, the Councils jointly manage fishing for Gulf group cobia in Federal waters from Texas to the Florida/Georgia boundary. The Gulf group cobia acceptable biological catch (ABC) is apportioned between the Gulf zone, which spans from the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas, Florida, to the Texas/Mexico border, and the Florida east coast (FLEC) zone, which spans from the Florida/Georgia border to the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Under the current framework procedures in the CMP FMP, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) is responsible for specifying management measures for Gulf group cobia, except that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) is responsible for specifying trip limits, closed seasons or areas, and gear restrictions in the FLEC zone.

The current overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC are 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) and 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), respectively. The current stock annual catch limit (ACL) is equal to the ABC. These catch limits were established in 2015 in Amendment 20B to the CMP FMP (80 FR 4216; January 27, 2015), and are based on the recommendations of the Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) from the Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 28 stock assessment. The recreational landings estimates used in SEDAR 28 were generated using the Marine Recreational Information Program's (MRIP) Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS).

In Amendment 20B, the Councils apportioned the Gulf group cobia stock ABC between the Gulf zone (64 percent) and FLEC zone (36 percent), based on average landings from 1998-2012 across both zones, with the ACL for each zone being set equal to the apportioned ABC. Recreational landings estimates during 1998-2012 were generated using MRIP-CHTS. In 2018, MRIP replaced the fishing effort estimates from the CHTS with those from the Fishing Effort Survey (FES). Total recreational fishing effort estimates generated from MRIP-FES are generally higher than MRIP-CHTS estimates, and those higher effort estimates necessarily increase the recreational landings estimates. This difference in the estimates is because MRIP-FES is designed to more accurately measure fishing activity. Had MRIP-FES data been available when the current Gulf grouper cobia OFL and ABC were established, the OFL would have been 4,870,000 lb (2,208,995 kg) and the ABC would have been 4,500,000 (2,041,166 kg).

In 2020, the SEDAR 28 Update indicated that Gulf group cobia was undergoing overfishing with the biomass at reduced levels, which puts the stock at risk of becoming overfished. The SEDAR 28 Update included updated recreational landings estimates based on MRIP FES. In July 2020, the Councils' SSCs reviewed the SEDAR 28 Update and recommended new OFLs and ABCs that would end overfishing of Gulf group cobia and allow harvest to increase over time. The SSCs' recommendation for OFL is 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032 kg) for 2022, and 3,310,000 lb (1,501,391 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The SSCs' recommendation for ABC is 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. These recommendations represent a reduction in the allowable harvest when compared to the current OFL and ABC, as noted previously.

The Gulf Council manages Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone without sector allocations. The South Atlantic Council manages Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone with sector allocations, allocating 8 percent of the ACL to the commercial sector and 92 percent of the ACL to the recreational sector. This allocation was originally established in 2012 in Amendment 18 to the CMP FMP, when two migratory groups of cobia were managed under the CMP FMP: Gulf group cobia and Atlantic migratory group cobia (Atlantic group cobia) (76 FR 82058; December 29, 2011). The allocation was based on a formula that balanced historical catches (2000-2008) with more recent landings (2006-2008). The boundary between these two migratory groups was set at the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas. However, the SEDAR 28 (2013) assessment determined that the biological boundary between the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of cobia was the Florida/Georgia border. To account for this change, in Amendment 20B the Councils created the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone, allocating a portion of the Gulf group cobia ABC to each zone. In that amendment, the Councils also chose to keep the same sector allocations for the FLEC zone that were established for Atlantic group cobia in Amendment 18 to the CMP FMP. Subsequently, the Councils removed Atlantic group cobia from the CMP FMP in 2018 through Amendment 31, and it is now managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (84 FR 4733; February 19, 2019).

The current stock ACT in the Gulf zone is 10 percent below the Gulf zone ACL. That ACT was selected to provide a buffer to the ACL, but result in a catch level that was no less than historic total catch from 2000-2009. The current recreational ACT in the FLEC zone is 17 percent below the FLEC zone ACL and was calculated using the following formula: the ACL multiplied by 1 minus the greater of the proportional standard error (PSE) of the recreational landings estimates, or 0.5.

The Councils established the current commercial and recreational possession limit for Gulf group cobia of two fish per person per day through Amendment 5 to the CMP FMP (55 FR 29370; July 19, 1990). This possession limit was extended to the FLEC zone when the Gulf group cobia boundary was changed. The FMP contains no commercial or recreational trip limit for Gulf group cobia in either zone.

The Councils first established a minimum size limit for cobia of 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length, in the original CMP FMP (48 FR 5270; February 4, 1983) and that minimum size limit applied to both the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone when they were created in Amendment 20B. In 2020, the Gulf Council revised the Gulf group cobia minimum size limit in the Gulf zone to 36 inches (91.4 cm) fork length, through Framework Amendment 7 to the CMP FMP (85 FR 10328; February 24, 2020).

For Gulf group cobia, this final rule revises the stock and sector ACLs, the Gulf zone stock ACT (quota), the FLEC zone recreational ACT, and the possession limit and minimum size limits, and establishes a commercial trip limit and a recreational vessel limits. This final rule also clarifies the CMP sale and purchase provisions for federally permitted dealers.

The current stock ACL for Gulf group cobia is equal to the ABC of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) and is based on the results of SEDAR 28, which used data from MRIP-CHTS. Amendment 32 retains the stock ACL for Gulf group cobia of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and increases the stock ACL to 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years, which is also equal to the ABCs recommended by the Councils' SSCs. The SSCs' recommendations and the Councils' determinations are based on the results of the SEDAR 28 Update, which used data from MRIP-FES. Thus, the revised ACLs using MRIP-FES data actually represent a decrease in the allowable harvest of Gulf group cobia, as discussed above. For example, had the current stock ACL been derived using MRIP-FES data, the current stock ACL would have been 4,500,000 lb (2,041,166 kg).

The current zone apportionment of the ABC (equal to the stock ACL) is 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone. Amendment 32 and this final rule revise the zone apportionment to 63 percent to the Gulf zone and 37 percent to the FLEC zone. This results in a Gulf zone ACL of 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) for 2022, and 1,738,000 lb (788,343 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The revised FLEC zone ACL will be 962,000 lb (436,356 kg) for 2022, and 1,021,200 lb (463,209 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.

Amendment 32 maintains the current commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone as 8 percent and 92 percent, respectively. The revised commercial ACLs (quotas) are 76,960 lb (34,908 kg) for 2022, and 81,696 lb (37,057 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The revised recreational ACLs are 885,040 lb (401,447 kg) for 2022, and 939,504 lb (426,152 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.

Amendment 32 and this final rule update the calculation for determining the ACTs using the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule. Applying the control rule resulted in ACTs that are 10 percent less than the respective zone ACLs. This final rule revises the stock ACT in the Gulf zone to be 1,474,200 lb (668,686 kg) for 2022, and 1,564,920 lb (709,836 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years, and revises the recreational ACT in the FLEC zone to be 796,536 lb (361,303 kg) for 2022, and 845,554 lb (383,537 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.

There is no commercial ACT for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone and the Councils did not establish a commercial ACT in Amendment 32. The Councils determined that a commercial ACT was not necessary because the commercial sector had not exceeded its ACL in the past and the projections in Amendment 32 indicated that commercial harvest would not exceed the revised ACLs.

The current possession limit for Gulf group cobia of two fish per person per day applies to commercial and recreational harvest in both zones. This possession limit is codified at 50 CFR 622.383(b), which addresses limited harvest species. In Amendment 32, the Councils decided to reduce the Gulf group cobia possession limit to one fish per person. The Councils also decided to establish a commercial trip limit of two fish and a recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip. As explained in more detail in the proposed rule, the purposes of these changes are to reduce fishing mortality, help constrain harvest to the applicable catch limits and extend the fishing season, and to make the harvest limits in Federal waters consistent with those established by the state of Florida.

This final rule implements these changes by establishing a recreational bag limit in 50 CFR 622.382(a) and a commercial trip limit in 50 CFR 622.385(c), and removing the regulations at 50 CFR 622.383. The recreational bag limit for Gulf group cobia will be one fish per person per day, not to exceed 2 fish per vessel per trip. The commercial trip limit for Gulf group cobia per day will be one fish per person and 2 fish per vessel, not to exceed 2 fish per vessel per trip. The commercial trip limit, and the recreational bag and vessel limits will apply to harvest from both the Gulf zone and FLEC zone.

This final rule increases the commercial and recreational minimum size limits for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone from 33 inches (83.8 cm) to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length. The current Gulf zone commercial and recreational minimum size limit is 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, and the Councils determined that having a consistent minimum size limit in both the FLEC and Gulf zones will reduce confusion about the regulations in Federal waters and decrease the burden on law enforcement, while also providing benefits to the stock.

Increasing the minimum size limit to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, in the FLEC zone will reduce the harvest rate across both sectors and reduce the total harvest. The increase in the minimum size limit will also increase the likelihood that sexually mature cobia are able to spawn more than once before being harvested, resulting in additional recruitment to the spawning stock over time.

This final rule also clarifies the sale and purchase regulations at 50 CFR 622.386(b) and (c). The Councils and NMFS do not require a specific Federal permit for the commercial harvest of Gulf group cobia. However, because this stock is included in the CMP FMP, the regulations at 50 CFR 622.386(b) and (c) restrict the sale and purchase of Gulf group cobia by federally permitted vessels and seafood dealers. The regulation at 50 CFR 622.386(b) requires that Gulf group cobia harvested on any vessel that has a valid Federal vessel permit ( i.e., commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for any Federal fishery) be sold to a seafood dealer who has a valid Federal Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit. Under 50 CFR 622.386(c), that same Federal dealer may purchase Gulf group cobia harvested in or from Gulf or South Atlantic Federal waters only from a vessel that has been issued a Federal CMP permit ( i.e., commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for king or Spanish mackerel). The dealer limitation in 50 CFR 622.386(c) is inconsistent with the requirement in 50 CFR 622.386(b) for Gulf group cobia on all federally permitted vessels to be sold to a federally permitted dealer, as well as with the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils' Generic Amendment that created the Federal Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit (79 FR 19490; April 9, 2014). Therefore, this final rule corrects the regulations in 50 CFR 622.386(c) to make the purchase restriction that is tied to having a Federal permit applicable only to king and Spanish mackerel species rather than to all CMP species generally. This correction will allow federally permitted dealers to accept Gulf group cobia harvested from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from any vessel, regardless of the permit status of the vessel.

As previously explained, the current OFL and ABC for Gulf group cobia of 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) and 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), are based on the Councils' SSCs' recommendations from SEDAR 28, which used recreational landings estimates from MRIP-CHTS. Amendment 32 adopts the new increasing OFLs and ABCs based on the SSCs' recommendations from the results of the SEDAR 28 Update, which used MRIP-FES recreational landings estimates. The new OFLs will be 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032 kg) for 2022, and 3,310,000 lb (1,501,391 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The new ABCs will be 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.

The current ABC apportionment for Gulf group cobia is 64 percent for the Gulf zone and 36 percent for the FLEC zone, respectively. Amendment 32 revises the Gulf group cobia ABC apportionment between the Gulf and FLEC zones by using the average landings from 1998-2012 across both zones using MRIP-FES landings for this time series. This results in a new apportionment of the Gulf group cobia stock ABC of 63 percent for the Gulf zone and 37 percent for the FLEC zone. Using the same time series to calculate the apportionment, but updating it by using MRIP-FES, addresses the higher recreational landings that have occurred in the FLEC zone compared to the Gulf zone.

Currently, Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone is managed as a stock without separate ACLs for each sector, and the Councils did not reconsider this management approach in Amendment 32. The commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone is 8 percent and 92 percent, respectively. Amendment 32 maintains stock management in the Gulf zone and maintains the current commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone. The current FLEC zone allocation will be applied to the revised FLEC zone ACLs. The Councils wanted to recognize the harvest needs of the commercial sector in the FLEC zone by not decreasing the status quo catch limit of 70,000 lb (31,751 kg).

Currently, the framework procedure limits the management measures that the South Atlantic Council may independently propose for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone to vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, or fishing gear restrictions.

Amendment 32 revises the framework procedures to allow the South Atlantic Council to independently change vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, fishing gear restrictions, per person bag and possession limits, size limits, in-season and post-season accountability measures, and specification of ACTs or sector ACTs for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone. The Councils decided that providing the South Atlantic Council the authority to make any of these changes through a framework process will allow the South Atlantic Council to respond quickly to new information. The Councils determined this change would result in beneficial biological, socio-economic, and administrative impacts.

Amendment 32 also clarifies language in the CMP FMP framework procedure by removing reference to Atlantic group cobia, which was removed from management by the Councils through Amendment 31 to the CMP FMP (84 FR 4733; February 19, 2019), and changes the language referring to the ABC/ACL Control Rule because there is no ABC/ACL Control Rule. Instead, this language should refer to the ABC and ACL/ACT Control Rules.

NMFS received four comments on the notice of availability for Amendment 32. No comments were received on the proposed rule. In general, the comments supported the proposed measures to end overfishing of Gulf group cobia. Some comments suggested changes to management measures that are outside the scope of the Amendment 32 and the proposed rule, such as a prohibition on commercial harvest and closure during the spawning season. These comments are not addressed further. Specific comments related to Amendment 32 and the proposed rule are grouped by topic and summarized below, followed by NMFS' respective responses.

Comment 1: Two comments addressed the proposed recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip. One comment suggested that the vessel limit should be one fish for the first year after implementation of the final rule and another comment recommended that the vessel limit should instead be four fish.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the vessel limit should be further reduced for the first year after implementation of the final rule or set at four fish per vessel. The Councils considered three alternatives for a recreational vessel limit: two fish, four fish, and six fish. The Councils did not consider reducing the vessel limit to one fish. Analysis in Amendment 32 showed that most recreational trips harvest only one cobia per vessel and less than five percent of recreational trips harvest four cobia per vessel. The two fish per vessel limit would allow two separate anglers to harvest fish on a trip and also extend the recreational fishing season. Importantly, the two fish vessel limit is consistent with those established by the state of Florida, which will aid with compliance and enforcement.

Comment 2: The FLEC zone commercial and recreational minimum size limits should remain at 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the minimum size limits should remain at 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length, in the FLEC zone. Regardless of the size limit, fishermen will need to measure and determine whether a fish they catch meets the minimum size limit. Further, analysis in Amendment 32 indicated that increasing the minimum size limits for the FLEC zone from 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length, to 36 inches (91.3 cm), fork length, in conjunction with the vessel limit would reduce the rate of harvest in the FLEC zone enough to constrain landings to the reduced catch limits that are necessary to end overfishing. Additionally, having the same regulations within both zones and for both sectors will reduce the complexity of complying with the regulations.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 32, the CMP FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA follows.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. A description of this final rule, why it is being implemented, and the purpose of this final rule are contained in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this final rule.

No public comments were received specifically in response to the IRFA, nor were there any public comments received that related to socio-economic implications and potential impacts on small entities. General issues raised in public comments are addressed in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule. No changes to this final rule were made in response to these public comments. No comments were received from the Office of Advocacy for the Small Business Administration (SBA).

This final rule will apply to all commercial vessels, charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels), and recreational anglers that fish for or harvest cobia in either the FLEC zone or Gulf zone. Because no Federal permit is required for the commercial harvest or sale of Gulf cobia, the distinction between commercial and recreational fishing activity for the purposes of this final rule is whether the fish are sold. Individuals that harvest Gulf cobia under the recreational bag limit in Federal waters and who do not subsequently sell these fish are considered to be recreational anglers. Recreational anglers are not considered small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), so they are outside the scope of this analysis (5 U.S.C. 603). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (5 U.S.C. 601(6) and 601(3)-(5)). Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. A component of this final rule will also apply to Federally-permitted dealers that purchase Gulf cobia.

For-hire vessels sell fishing services to recreational anglers. The changes to the CMP FMP implemented by this final rule will not directly alter the services sold by these for-hire vessels. Any change in anglers' demand for these fishing services (and associated economic effects) as a result of this final rule would be secondary to any direct effect on anglers and, therefore, would be an indirect effect of this final rule. Indirect effects fall outside the scope of the RFA; however, because for-hire captains and crew are allowed to harvest and sell Gulf cobia under the possession limit when the commercial season is open, for-hire businesses, or employees thereof, could be directly affected by this final rule as well.

In summary, businesses that engage in commercial fishing ( i.e., those that sell their harvests of Gulf cobia, including some for-hire businesses), as well as seafood dealers that purchase Gulf cobia, are the only small entities that will be directly affected by the final rule, and therefore only the impacts on these small entities will be discussed.

Although no Federal permit is required for the commercial harvest and sale of Gulf cobia, vessels with other Federal commercial permits are required to report their catches for all species harvested, including Gulf cobia. On average from 2015 through 2019, there were 261 federally-permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of cobia in the Gulf zone. Their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species for 2015 through 2019 was approximately $195,000 (2019 dollars) and cobia harvested from the Gulf zone accounted for less than one percent of this revenue. During the same time period, 248 federally-permitted commercial vessels reported landings of cobia in the FLEC zone. Their average annual vessel-level revenue from all species for 2015 through 2019 was approximately $46,000 (2019 dollars) and cobia harvested from the FLEC zone accounted for approximately one percent of this revenue. The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single one of the vessels that harvested Gulf cobia from 2015 through 2019 was approximately $2.27 million (2019 dollars).

For anglers to fish for or possess CMP species in or from the Gulf EEZ on for-hire vessels, those vessels are required to have a Federal limited access Gulf Charter Vessel/Headboat for Coastal Migratory Pelagics permit (Gulf CMP for-hire permit). On September 3, 2021, there were 1,301 valid (non-expired) or renewable Gulf CMP for-hire permits and 4 valid or renewable Gulf CMP historical captain for-hire permits. For anglers to fish for or possess CMP species in or from the Mid-Atlantic or South Atlantic EEZ on for-hire vessels, those vessels are required to have a Federal open access South Atlantic Charter Vessel/Headboat for Coastal Migratory Pelagics permit (South Atlantic CMP for-hire permit). On September 3, 2021, there were 1,825 valid South Atlantic CMP for-hire permits. Although the for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the permit does not identify the permitted vessel as either a headboat or a charter vessel and vessels may operate in both capacities. However, only federally-permitted headboats are required to submit harvest and effort information to the NMFS Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS). Participation in the SRHS is based on determination by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center that the vessel primarily operates as a headboat. As of March 9, 2021, 69 Gulf headboats were registered in the SRHS. There were 39 Atlantic headboats registered in the SRHS that may operate in the FLEC zone, as well. As a result, of the 1,305 vessels with Gulf CMP for-hire permits (including historical captain permits), up to 69 may primarily operate as headboats and the remainder as charter vessels. Of the 1,825 vessels with South Atlantic CMP for-hire permits, up to 39 may primarily operate as headboats.

The average charter vessel operating in the Gulf is estimated to receive approximately $90,000 (2019 dollars) in gross revenue and $27,000 in net income (gross revenue minus variable and fixed costs) annually. The average Gulf headboat is estimated to receive approximately $272,000 (2019 dollars) in gross revenue and $79,000 in net income annually. The average charter vessel operating in the South Atlantic is estimated to receive approximately $125,000 (2019 dollars) in annual gross revenue. The average South Atlantic headboat is expected to receive approximately $222,000 (2019 dollars) in annual gross revenue. Estimates of annual net income for South Atlantic charter vessels and headboats are not available.

As of July 12, 2021, there were 373 entities with a Federal Gulf and South Atlantic Dealer permit. The number of these seafood dealers that will be directly affected by this final rule is unknown; therefore, this number may be considered an upper bound estimate.

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this final rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard.

The SBA has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210) and seafood dealers/wholesalers (NAICS code 424460). A business primarily involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $8 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the for-hire vessels directly regulated by this final rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria. A business that primarily operates as a seafood dealer/wholesaler is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual employment not in excess of 100 employees for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Employment data for the dealers directly regulated by this final rule are not available; however, NMFS conservatively assumes a substantial number of these dealers are small entities based on the SBA size criteria.

No other small entities that will be directly affected by this final rule have been identified.

This final rule will modify the Gulf cobia stock ACL based on the recommendations of the Councils' SSCs, as presented in July 2020. The stock ACL will be set equal to the stock ABC or 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) in 2022 and then increase to 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) in 2023 and thereafter. These new ACLs are not directly comparable to the status quo ACL of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), because the status quo ACL is based on MRIP-CHTS data for the recreational sector; whereas, the new ACLs are based on MRIP-FES data. When converted to an MRIP-FES equivalent value, however, the status quo ACL is estimated to be approximately 4,500,000 lb (2,041,166 kg). Although this final rule is expected to result in a 42 percent to 39 percent reduction in the stock ACL relative to the MRIP-FES equivalent status quo ACL, these differences do not represent differences between status quo harvest opportunities and expected future harvests. That is because the stock ACL is sub-divided into zone and sector specific ACLs, and those sub-ACLs dictate fishing opportunities. Also, based on historical landings information, the stock ACL has been underutilized in the past, and therefore, a reduction in the ACL may not impact harvests in the short term. Additionally, because the Gulf zone ACL is shared by the commercial and recreational sectors, and given the change from MRIP-CHTS to MRIP-FES, the portion of the Gulf zone ACL that will be harvested by each sector is unclear. Therefore, economic effects that will result from these ACL changes cannot be quantified.

This final rule will also modify the Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment to be 63 percent for the Gulf zone and 37 percent for the FLEC zone, based on the MRIP-FES average landings for Gulf cobia for the years 1998 through 2012, and use this apportionment to update the zone ACLs based on the Gulf cobia stock ACL described above. This translates into an ACL for the Gulf zone of 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) in 2022 and 1,738,800 lb (788,706 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. For the FLEC zone, the ACL will be 962,000 lb (436,356 kg) in 2022 and 1,021,200 lb (463,209 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. These changes to the stock ACL apportionment will result in a benefit transfer from the Gulf zone to the FLEC zone, by allocating one percent more of the Gulf cobia stock ACL to the FLEC zone as compared to the status quo allocation. Because the new zone ACLs are not directly comparable to the status quo zone ACLs, due to the change from MRIP-CHTS to MRIP-FES, and because there is a single stock ACL for the Gulf zone, with no sector sub-ACLs, the economic effects of this reallocation to the commercial sector and the for-hire component of the recreational sector cannot be quantified.

Additionally, this final rule will retain the FLEC zone cobia ACL sector allocation of 8 percent to the commercial sector and 92 percent to the recreational sector and update the sector ACLs accordingly. This will result in a FLEC zone commercial ACL of 76,960 lb (34,908 kg) in 2022 and 81,696 lb (37,057 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. Relative to the status quo FLEC zone commercial ACL of 70,000 lb (31,751 kg), this is an increase of 6,960 lb (3,157 kg) in 2022 and 11,696 lb (5,305 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. The commercial sector (including for-hire vessels that sell their catch) is not expected to harvest the new ACL in full in the short-term, based on the annual average commercial cobia landings for the FLEC zone from 2015 through 2019. However, harvest of the full FLEC zone ACL in the future would result in an increase in estimated ex-vessel value of $25,600 to $43,000 (2019 dollars) relative to the status quo. Divided by the number of commercial vessels from 2015 through 2019 with reported FLEC zone cobia landings, this would translate to an increase in ex-vessel revenue of $103 to $173 dollars per vessel (less than one percent of average annual per vessel revenue).

This final rule will use the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule to calculate ACTs for the Gulf zone and the recreational sector in the FLEC zone, setting each ACT at 10 percent below their respective zone ACLs. The Gulf zone stock ACT, which is shared by the commercial and recreational sectors, will be 1,474,200 lb (668,686 kg) in 2022 and 1,564,920 lb (709,836 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. In the Gulf zone, the switch from a constant ACT to an ACT calculated using the Gulf's control rule will result in the same buffer between the ACL and the ACT of 10 percent. Therefore, this change to the method used for setting the ACT will not affect Gulf commercial cobia fishing practices or harvests in the Gulf zone and will not result in economic effects. The FLEC zone currently has no commercial sector ACT.

This final rule will also reduce the daily possession limit for cobia in the Gulf zone, for both recreational and commercial sectors, to one fish per person. This commercial limit will be codified as a commercial trip limit and the recreational limit as a recreational bag limit. NMFS expects these changes to reduce commercial Gulf zone cobia landings by 51 lb (23 kg) in total each year. The associated loss in aggregate ex-vessel revenue expected to result from this reduction is estimated at $188 (2019 dollars). This final rule will also create a recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip and a commercial trip limit of two fish per trip, noting that fishermen may not exceed the per person daily possession limit. NMFS expects these changes to reduce commercial landings by 1,295 lb (587 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated at $4,793 (2019 dollars) or approximately $18 per vessel per year, on average. It is not possible to quantify the direct economic effects of these changes on for-hire fishing vessels because data that describe commercial cobia landings on for-hire vessels are not available; however, the new commercial daily possession limit and commercial trip limit may reduce their opportunity to sell cobia.

Moreover, this final rule will reduce the daily possession limit for cobia in the FLEC zone, for both commercial and recreational sectors, to one fish per person. NMFS expects these changes to reduce total commercial FLEC zone cobia landings by 6,127 lb (2,779 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated at $25,857 (2019 dollars) or approximately $104 per vessel per year, on average. This final rule will also create a recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip and a commercial vessel trip limit of two fish per trip, noting that fishermen may not exceed the per person daily possession limit. NMFS expects these changes to reduce total commercial landings by 3,939 lb (1,787 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated at $16,622 (2019 dollars) or approximately $67 per vessel per year, on average. It is not possible to quantify the direct economic effects of these changes on for-hire fishing vessels due to data limitations described earlier; however, the new commercial daily possession limit and commercial trip limit may reduce their opportunity to sell cobia.

This final rule will retain the current minimum size limit of 36 inches, fork length, in the Gulf zone and increase the minimum size limit from 33 inches fork length to 36 inches fork length in the FLEC zone. NMFS expects this change to reduce commercial landings in the FLEC zone by 11,904 lb (5,400 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated to be $50,237 (2019 dollars) or approximately $203 per vessel per year, on average (less than one percent of average annual per vessel revenue). It is not possible to quantify the direct economic effects of the change in the minimum size limit on for-hire fishing vessels due to data limitations described earlier; however, it may reduce their opportunity to sell cobia.

Finally, this final rule will modify the framework procedure to update the responsibilities of each Council for setting regulations for Gulf cobia. Specifically, it will expand the South Atlantic Council's responsibilities for Gulf cobia in the FLEC zone to include: per person bag and possession limits, size limits, in-season and post-season accountability measures, and specification of ACTs or sector ACTs. The South Atlantic Council will now be able to independently approve framework actions pertaining to these specific management measures for the FLEC zone for Gulf cobia. Two additional corrections are being included to the framework procedure via this final rule. Atlantic group cobia was removed from the CMP FMP through the final rule implementing Amendment 31. However, the CMP framework procedure was not updated at that time to remove reference to Atlantic group cobia. In addition, the CMP framework language referencing the ABC/ACL Control Rule is incorrect because it lacks an ABC/ACL control rule. Instead, the CMP framework language should refer to the ABC and ACL/ACT Control Rules. The Councils are making these corrections through this final rule. The changes to the CMP framework are administrative in nature and will not have direct economic effects on any small entities.

The following discussion describes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Councils.

Three alternatives were considered for the action to modify the Gulf cobia OFL, ABC, and ACL. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current reference points (OFL and ABC) and the stock ACL for Gulf group cobia. The no-action alternative would not be expected to change fishing practices or commercial harvests of Gulf cobia, nor result in economic effects. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it would be inconsistent with the SSCs' latest catch limit recommendations and the transition to MRIP-FES, and therefore, would not be based on the best scientific information available. The second alternative is the preferred alternative. The third alternative would modify the Gulf cobia stock OFL, ABC, and ACL as a constant catch value for 2021 and subsequent fishing years or until changed by a future management action. The stock ACL would be set equal to the stock ABC or 2,340,000 lb (1,061,406 kg) for 2021 and thereafter. This would be 260,000 lb (117,934 kg) less than the preferred alternative in 2022 and 420,000 lb (190,509 kg) less than the preferred alternative for 2023 and subsequent years. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to provide fewer commercial fishing opportunities and lower economic benefits in the long term as compared to the preferred alternative. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because they determined that it was unnecessary to prevent overfishing and would unnecessarily limit future harvest levels and associated economic benefits for the commercial and recreational sectors.

Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the Gulf cobia stock apportionment between the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment of 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone based on MRIP-CHTS average landings for Gulf cobia for the years 1998-2012. The first alternative was not selected by the Councils. It would not align with the SSCs' OFL and ABC recommendations based on the SEDAR 28 Update assessment to monitor recreational catch and effort in MRIP-FES data currency (SEDAR 28 Update 2020), nor would the calculation use FLEC zone cobia-specific landings. The second alternative would retain the Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment between the zones at 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone, and use this apportionment to update both zone ACLs in MRIP-FES units. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it fails to account for the effects of the change in recreational data reporting on historical landings during the time series used to set the current allocation (1998-2012). The third alternative is the preferred alternative. The fourth alternative would modify the Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment to be 59 percent to the Gulf zone and 41 percent to the FLEC zone, based on the MRIP-FES average landings for Gulf cobia for the years 2003-2019, and use this apportionment to update the zone ACLs. This would result in a 4 percent lesser allocation percentage to the Gulf zone relative to the preferred alternative. The Councils did not select this alternative because the landings during the latter years in the time series may be biased by recent changes in the management of Gulf cobia.

Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the FLEC zone cobia allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the FLEC zone cobia ACL allocation of 8 percent to the commercial sector and 92 percent to the recreational sector based on the South Atlantic Council's allocation formula for Atlantic group cobia based on MRIP-CHTS landings, which balanced historical catches (2000-2008) with more recent landings (2006-2008). The first alternative was not selected by the Councils. It would not align with the SSCs' OFL and ABC recommendations based on the SEDAR 28 Update assessment to monitor recreational catch and effort in MRIP-FES data currency (SEDAR 28 Update 2020). The second alternative would modify the FLEC zone cobia ACL allocation to be 5 percent to the commercial sector and 95 percent to the recreational sector based on the South Atlantic Council's allocation formula for Atlantic group cobia applied to historic MRIP-FES data for FLEC zone cobia specific landings. This formula balanced historical catches landings (2000-2008) with more recent landings (2006-2008). This alternative would result in a FLEC zone commercial ACL of 48,100 lb (21,818 kg) in 2022 and 51,060 lb (23,160 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years based on the preferred alternative in the first action for an increasing catch yield stream. Relative to the preferred alternative this would be a decrease in the FLEC zone commercial ACL of 28,860 lb (13,091 kg) in 2022 and 30,636 lb (13,896 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. If the commercial ACL constrains harvest in the future, this would represent a potential loss in ex-vessel revenue of $121,789 to $129,284 (2019 dollars); or, approximately $491 to $521 per vessel per year, on average. The Councils did not select this alternative because they did not want to decrease the commercial sector ACL. The third alternative is the preferred alternative. The fourth alternative would modify the FLEC zone cobia ACL allocations to be calculated based on maintaining the current commercial ACL ( i.e., 70,000 lb [31,751 kg]) beginning in the 2021 fishing year and allocating the remaining revised total ACL to the recreational sector. The allocation percentages for 2021 would then be applied to the FLEC zone cobia ACL in years following 2021. This alternative would result in a FLEC zone commercial ACL of 77,778 lb (35,280 kg) in 2022 and 82,564 lb (37,450 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. Relative to the preferred alternative this would be an increase in the FLEC zone commercial ACL of 818 lb (371 kg) in 2022 and 868 lb (394 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. If the commercial ACL constrains harvest in the future, this would represent a potential increase in aggregate ex-vessel revenue of $3,452 to $3,663 (2019 dollars); or, approximately $15 per vessel per year, on average. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because they believed it was a more complicated approach to achieving the same goal as the preferred alternative (no reduction in the commercial ACL), the benefits to the commercial sector would be minimal, and it would potentially create confusion for fishery stakeholders when revisiting sector allocations in the future.

Three alternatives were considered for the action to update and/or establish ACTs for the Gulf group cobia zones. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current formula for setting the Gulf cobia ACTs in the Gulf zone and FLEC zone. Under this alternative the Gulf zone ACT would be set at 90 percent of the Gulf zone ACL and the FLEC zone ACT would be set at the FLEC zone ACL multiplied by ((1- PSE of the FLEC zone recreational landings) or 0.5, whichever is greater). This alternative would result in the same ACT buffer for the Gulf zone of 10 percent relative to the preferred alternative. However, the FLEC zone recreational sector would retain a 17 percent ACT buffer. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because they wanted a consistent method for setting ACTs in each zone. The second alternative is the preferred alternative. The third alternative would establish an ACT for the commercial sector in the FLEC zone using the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule. Relative to the preferred alternative, this alternative has the potential to reduce commercial fishing opportunities for FLEC zone cobia, as this sector has not historically had an ACT. Therefore, it would be expected to result in greater associated economic losses to commercial fishing businesses over the long term. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because the commercial quota monitoring system is effective and there is low risk of overages for the FLEC zone commercial sector.

Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the possession, vessel, and trip limits for cobia in the Gulf zone. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current commercial and recreational daily possession limit of two fish per person and would not implement a vessel or trip limit. Therefore, this alternative would not be expected to result in economic effects to small entities. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it would forgo biological benefits to the stock afforded by reduced fishing pressure. The second alternative is the preferred alternative and contains two preferred options that apply to both the recreational sector and the commercial sector, respectively. The third alternative, which was also selected as preferred, will create a recreational vessel limit; however, fishermen will not be allowed to exceed the per person daily possession limit. The third alternative contained three options. The first option was selected as preferred, which sets the recreational vessel limit at two fish per vessel per trip. The second and third options would set the vessel limit per trip at four fish and six fish, respectively. Changes to the recreational vessel limit would not have a direct economic effect on any small entities. The fourth and final alternative for this action, also selected as preferred, will set a commercial trip limit; however, fishermen will not be allowed to exceed the per person daily possession limit. The fourth alternative also contained three options. The first option was selected as preferred, which sets the commercial trip limit at two fish per trip. The second and third options would set the trip limit at four fish and six fish, respectively. Relative to the preferred option, these would be expected to result in commercial cobia landings that are 926 to 1,296 lb (420 to 588 kg) greater. These additional landings would be worth an estimated $3,426 to $4,795 (2019 dollars) or less than $19 in ex-vessel revenue per vessel per year, on average. The Councils did not select the second and third options because they would be inconsistent with harvest limits in Florida state waters in the Gulf and, therefore, would not aid with compliance and enforcement.

Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the possession, vessel, and trip limits for cobia in the FLEC zone. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current recreational and commercial daily possession limit of two fish per person in the FLEC zone, and would not implement a vessel or trip limit. Therefore, this alternative would not be expected to result in economic effects to small entities. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it would forgo biological benefits to the stock afforded by reduced fishing pressure as well as a potentially longer recreational season. The second alternative is the preferred alternative and contains two preferred options that apply to both the recreational sector and the commercial sector, respectively. The third alternative, which was also selected as preferred, will create a recreational vessel limit; however, fishermen will not be allowed to exceed the per person daily possession limit. The third alternative contained three options. The first option was selected as preferred, which sets the recreational vessel limit at two fish per vessel per trip. The second and third options would set the vessel limit per trip at four fish and six fish, respectively. Changes to the recreational vessel limit would not have a direct economic effect on any small entities. The fourth and final alternative for this action, also selected as preferred, will set a commercial vessel trip limit; however, fishermen will not be allowed to exceed the per person daily possession limit. The fourth alternative also contained three options. The first option was selected as preferred, which sets the commercial vessel trip limit at two fish per trip. The second and third options would set the commercial vessel trip limit at four fish and six fish, respectively. Relative to the preferred option, these would be expected to result in commercial cobia landings that are 2,626 lb (1,191 kg) greater. These additional landings would be worth an estimated $11,082 (2019 dollars) or approximately $45 in ex-vessel revenue per vessel per year, on average. The Councils did not select the second and third options because they wanted to be consistent with the commercial trip limit proposed for the Gulf zone.

Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the Gulf cobia minimum size limit. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current commercial and recreational minimum size limit of 36 inches (94.1 cm), fork length, in the Gulf zone and 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length, in the FLEC zone. This would not be expected to result in economic effects on any small entities. The first alternative was not selected by the Councils, because they believed an increased minimum size limit in the FLEC zone would benefit the stock by allowing for a greater proportion of the stock to become sexually mature prior to being harvested. They also wanted consistent cobia size limits in Federal waters. The second alternative is the preferred alternative. The third alternative would increase the commercial and recreational minimum size limit to 39 inches (99.1 cm), fork length. The third alternative contained two options that would apply the 39 inch (99.1 cm) minimum size limit to the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone, respectively. Increasing the minimum size limit to 39 inches (99.1 cm), fork length, from 36 inches (94.1 cm), fork length, in the Gulf zone would be expected to result in a loss of 9,618 lb (4,363 kg) and $35,586 (2019 dollars) in ex-vessel revenue ($136 per vessel per year, on average). In the FLEC zone, a minimum size limit of 39 inches (99.1 cm), fork length, would lead to a loss in landings that is 9,498 lb (4,308 kg) greater than what is expected under the preferred alternative. This would translate into an additional $40,078 (2019 dollars) reduction in ex-vessel revenue or $162 per vessel per year, on average, relative to the preferred alternative. The fourth and final alternative for this action would increase the commercial and recreational minimum size limit to 42 inches (106.7 cm), fork length. The fourth alternative contained two options that would apply the 42 inch (106.7 cm) minimum size limit to the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone, respectively. Increasing the minimum size limit to 42 inches (106.7 cm), fork length, would be expected to result in a loss of 19,287 lb (8,748 kg) and $71,361 (2019 dollars) in ex-vessel revenue ($273 per vessel per year, on average) in the Gulf zone. In the FLEC zone, a minimum size limit of 42 inches (106.7 cm), fork length, would lead to a loss in landings that is 14,487 lb (6,571 kg) greater than what is expected under the preferred alternative. This would translate into an additional $61,133 reduction in ex-vessel revenue or $247 per vessel per year, on average, relative to the preferred alternative. The Councils did not select the third or fourth alternative and two options for each of those two alternatives because they would indirectly drive fishing efforts to target more fecund female cobia, which may have a negative effect on the spawning stock biomass and could result in shorter fishing seasons due to heavier fish being landed.

Finally, two alternatives were considered for the action to modify the framework procedure. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not make any changes to the framework procedure and thus would not have any economic effects on any small entities. It was not selected by the Councils because it would forgo the biological, social, and economic benefits of allowing the South Atlantic Council to react quicker and be more responsive to updated scientific information or changes in fishing harvest for FLEC zone cobia. The second alternative is the preferred alternative.

An additional item is contained in this final rule that is not included in Amendment 32, namely a revision to the language in 50 CFR 622.386(c). This revision will allow federally-permitted dealers to purchase cobia harvested in or from the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ from any vessel, regardless of whether the vessel has been issued a Federal commercial vessel permit or a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit. It is unclear how many vessels and dealers will be impacted by this change; however, NMFS expects the direct economic effects to be positive because this change will expand the opportunity for federally and non-federally permitted vessels, and federally-permitted dealers to sell or buy Gulf cobia, respectively.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. Copies of this final rule are available from the Southeast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., fishery bulletin, will be sent to all known industry contacts in the CMP Fishery and be posted at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/tags/small-entity-compliance-guide?title=&field_species_vocab_target_id=&field_region_vocab_target_id%5B1000001121%5D=1000001121&sort_by=created. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request.

No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule. This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2022 Pacific cod TAC specified for trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 27,855 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (87 FR 11626, March 2, 2022) and reallocations (87 FR 51004, August 19, 2022; 87 FR 59730, October 3, 2022).

The 2022 Pacific cod TAC specified for Amendment 80 trawl catcher/processors in the BSAI is 17,981 mt as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (87 FR 11626, March 2, 2022).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that trawl catcher vessels will not be able to harvest 700 mt of the 2022 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 9 ).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iii)(B), NMFS apportions 700 mt of Pacific cod from trawl catcher vessels to the annual amount specified for Amendment 80 trawl catcher/processors.

The harvest specifications for 2022 Pacific cod included in final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (87 FR 11626, March 2, 2022) and reallocations (87 FR 51004, August 19, 2022; 87 FR 59730, October 3, 2022) is revised as follows: 27,155 mt to trawl catcher vessels, and 18,681 mt to Amendment 80 trawl catcher/processors.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 17, 2022.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.