I. Background A. Cybersecurity Threat

The cyber threat to the country's critical infrastructure, including pipelines, has remained elevated since the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline Company on May 8, 2021. That attack temporarily disrupted critical supplies of gasoline and other refined petroleum products throughout the East Coast and demonstrated the significant threat such attacks pose to the country's infrastructure and economic well-being. The cyber threat posed by both criminal enterprises and nation-state actors continues to expand and become more complex. Ransomware tactics and techniques continue to evolve, exhibiting threat actors' growing technological sophistication and an increased ransomware threat to organizations globally. 1 The intelligence community has assessed that both the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation have the capability to target critical infrastructure with cyber operations. 2

In 2022, the threat was heightened further in light of the Russian Federation's attack on Ukraine. 3 Throughout the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict there has been an increase in activity by politically or ideologically-motivated cyber groups and criminal cyber groups, who may act independently and without official support from a nation-state government, to target critical infrastructure, including the transportation sector. Illustrating the threat, on March 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed indictments of three Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officers and employees of a State Research Center of the Russian Federation FGUP Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics (also known as “TsNIIKhM”) for their involvement in intrusion campaigns against U.S. and international oil refineries, nuclear facilities, and energy companies. Documents revealed that the FSB conducted a multi-stage campaign in which they gained remote access to U.S. and international energy sector networks, deployed industrial control systems (ICS)-focused malware, and collected and exfiltrated enterprise and ICS-related data. 4 Since April 15, 2022, a pro-Russian hacking group known as “Killnet” has targeted a number of transportation entities, including U.S. and European airports and a U.S. oil and natural gas company. Killnet claimed responsibility for an October 10, 2022, cyber incident targeting the public-facing website of 48 airports across the United States, resulting in a number of these websites being unavailable for a period of time.

On May 27, 2021, TSA issued Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01, which was the first of two security directives issued by TSA to enhance the cybersecurity of critical pipeline systems in response to the attack on Colonial Pipeline. Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01, and the subsequent amendments in this series, required covered owner/operators to: (1) report cybersecurity incidents to CISA; (2) appoint a cybersecurity coordinator to be available 24/7 to coordinate with TSA and CISA; and (3) conduct a self-assessment of cybersecurity practices, identify any gaps, and develop a plan and timeline for remediation. 5 This first security directive went into effect on May 28, 2021 and was ratified by the TSOB on July 3, 2021. 6

On December 1, 2021, TSA amended Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01 to update the definition of cybersecurity incident to ensure the consistent identification of incidents that must be reported to CISA across all modes of transportation. 7 This amended directive, Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01A, was ratified by the TSOB on December 29, 2021. 8

In light of the continuing and evolving threat, as reflected in recent and ongoing intelligence, TSA determined that the measures required by the Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01 series remain necessary to protect the Nation's critical pipeline infrastructure beyond Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01A's expiration date of May 28, 2022. On May 27, 2022, TSA issued Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01B to extend the requirements of Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01A for an additional year. Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01B became effective May 29, 2022 and expires on May 29, 2023. Security Directive Pipeline 2021-01B is available online in TSA's Surface Transportation Cybersecurity Toolkit. 9

The only substantive change in Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01B to the prior requirements is an increase in the amount of time covered entities have to report cybersecurity incidents to CISA from 12 hours to 24 hours after an incident is identified. This change aligned the reporting timeline for critical pipeline entities to mirror the reporting requirements applicable to other surface transportation entities and aviation entities. TSA reached the determination to extend the reporting deadline to 24 hours following engagement with industry stakeholders and in consultation with CISA.

Due to the extent of the threat to pipeline cybersecurity reflected by intelligence, and the need for widespread best practices to be mandated within the industry, TSA issued Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02 on July 19, 2021. This directive required owner/operators to implement additional cybersecurity measures to prevent disruption and degradation to their infrastructure in response to the ongoing threat. Specifically, Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02, which became effective on July 26, 2021, and was set to expire on July 26, 2022, required owner/operators to take the following additional actions:

• Implement an array of specified mitigation measures to reduce the risk of compromise from a cyberattack;

• Develop a Cybersecurity Contingency/Response Plan to reduce the risk of operational disruption or functional degradation of information technology and operational technology systems in the event of a malicious cyber intrusion; and

• Test the effectiveness their cybersecurity practices through an annual cybersecurity architecture design review conducted by a third party.

Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02 was ratified by the TSOB on August 17, 2021. 10

On December 17, 2021, TSA issued Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02B, amending Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02 in response to industry input. Specifically, the amended directive revised the time limits for owner/operators to install security software updates and patches for operating systems, applications, drivers, and firmware on Information Technology systems. The TSOB ratified Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02B on January 13, 2022. 11

In response to the persistent threat to critical oil and natural gas pipelines, TSA determined that it remains necessary for owner/operators of the most critical oil and natural pipelines to implement and maintain cybersecurity measures to prevent disruption and degradation to their infrastructure. On July 21, 2022, TSA issued Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C requiring owner/operators of the most critical oil and natural gas pipelines to continue to implement necessary cybersecurity measures. The directive became effective on July 27, 2022, and is set to expire on July 27, 2023.

In order to best achieve the critical security outcomes necessary to counter the threat, Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C transitioned the original requirements to a performance-based model. The directive maintains the security objectives of the previous versions, but implements them through performance-based standards rather than requiring specific prescriptive measures. This approach enhances security by allowing owner/operators to choose the most appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect their specific systems, while mandating that certain security outcomes are achieved. It also provides owner/operators greater ability to be agile and adaptive in leveraging innovative technologies in a changing threat environment.

Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C identifies four critical security outcomes that covered entities are required to achieve:

• Implement network segmentation policies and controls to ensure that the Operational Technology (OT) system can continue to safely operate in the event that an Information Technology (IT) system has been compromised;

• Implement access control measures to secure and prevent unauthorized access to critical cyber systems;

• Implement continuous monitoring and detection policies and procedures to detect cybersecurity threats and correct anomalies that affect critical cyber system operations; and

• Reduce the risk of exploitation of unpatched systems through the application of security patches and updates for operating systems, applications, drivers and firmware on critical cyber systems in a timely manner using a risk-based methodology.

For each of these performance outcomes, the directive includes specific issues that must be addressed and provides options for achieving the required outcomes.

To ensure that the critical security outcomes identified are achieved under this performance-based framework, Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C requires that owner/operators:

• Establish and implement a TSA-approved Cybersecurity Implementation Plan that describes the specific cybersecurity measures employed and the schedule for achieving the security outcomes identified;

• Develop and maintain an up-to-date Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan to reduce the risk of operational disruption, or the risk of other significant impacts on necessary capacity, as defined in the directive, should the Information and/or Operational Technology systems of a gas or liquid pipeline be affected by a cybersecurity incident; and

• Establish a Cybersecurity Assessment Program and submit an annual plan that describes how the Owner/Operator will proactively and regularly assess the effectiveness of cybersecurity measures and identify and resolve device, network, and/or system vulnerabilities.

Cybersecurity experts from TSA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) contributed to the development of the requirements and performance-based standards in Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C to ensure the efficacy of the requirements in mitigating vulnerabilities. The directive also reflects input from stakeholders and for a transition to a performance-based, security outcome-focused model. Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C is available online in TSA's Surface Transportation Cybersecurity Toolkit. 12

TSA has broad statutory responsibility and authority to safeguard the nation's transportation system. 13 The TSOB—a body consisting of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of National Intelligence, or their designees, and a representative of the National Security Council—reviews certain TSA regulations and security directives consistent with law. 14 TSA issued both of these security directives under 49 U.S.C. 114( l )(2)(A), which authorizes TSA to issue emergency regulations or security directives without providing notice or public comment where “the Administrator determines that a regulation or security directive must be issued immediately in order to protect transportation security. . . .”. Security directives issued pursuant to the procedures in 49 U.S.C. 114( l )(2) “shall remain effective for a period not to exceed 90 days unless ratified or disapproved by the Board or rescinded by the Administrator.”  15

Following the issuance of Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01B on May 27, 2022, the chairman of the TSOB convened the board for the purpose of reviewing the directive. In reviewing Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01B, the TSOB considered the continuing need for TSA to maintain the directive's requirements pursuant to its emergency authority under 49 U.S.C. 114( 1 )(2) to prevent the disruption and degradation of the country's critical transportation infrastructure and the change in the deadline for reporting cybersecurity incidents to CISA from 12 hours to 24 hours. Following its review, the TSOB ratified Security Directive Pipeline-2021-01B on June 24, 2022.

Following the issuance of Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C on July 21, 2022, the chairman again convened the board for the purpose of reviewing that directive. In reviewing Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C, the TSOB considered its transition to a performance-based approach to requiring owner/operators of critical oil and natural gas pipelines to address persistent and evolving cyber threats that threaten the country's critical pipeline infrastructure as well as the need for TSA to issue the directive's requirements using its emergency authority under 49 U.S.C. ll4( l )(2)(A). The TSOB also considered whether to authorize TSA to extend the security directive beyond its current expiration date of July 27, 2023, subject to certain conditions, should the TSA Administrator believe such an extension is necessary to address the evolving threat that may continue beyond the original expiration date.

Following its review, the TSOB ratified Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C on August 19, 2022. The TSOB also authorized TSA to extend the security directive beyond its current expiration date, should the TSA Administrator determine such an extension is necessary to address the evolving threat that may continue beyond the original expiration date. Such an extension is subject to the following conditions: (1) there are no changes to the security directive other than an extended expiration date; (2) the TSA Administrator makes an affirmative determination that conditions warrant the extension of the directive's requirements; and (3) the TSA Administrator documents such a determination and notifies the TSOB.

I. Background A. Cybersecurity Threat

The cyber threat to the country's critical infrastructure, including freight and passenger rail, remains elevated and poses a risk to the national and economic security of the United States. Malicious actors have increasingly demonstrated the capability to conduct cyber-attacks exploiting the vulnerabilities of the internet-accessible Operational Technology (OT) assets and Information Technology (IT) systems of the surface transportation sector. In recent years, cyber attackers have maliciously targeted surface transportation modes in the U.S., including freight railroads, passenger railroads, and rail transit systems, with multiple cyberattack and cyber espionage campaigns. 1 By targeting the integrated cyber and physical infrastructure of surface transportation entities, these actions threaten the safe, secure, and uninterrupted daily operation of surface transportation systems relied upon by the U.S. economy with potential to cause nation-wide impact.

The cyber threat posed by both criminal enterprises and nation-state actors continues to expand and become more complex. Ransomware tactics and techniques continue to evolve, exhibiting threat actors' growing technological sophistication and an increased ransomware threat to organizations globally. 2 The intelligence community has assessed that both the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation have the capability to target critical infrastructure with cyber operations. 3 In particular, the intelligence assessment is that China presents the most active and persistent cyber threat to the U.S. with the capability to launch attacks that would disrupt critical rail systems. 4

In 2022, the threat was heightened further in light of the Russian Federation's attack on Ukraine. 5 Throughout the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict there has been an increase in activity by politically or ideologically-motivated cyber groups and criminal cyber groups, who may act independently and without official support from a nation-state government, to target critical infrastructure, including the transportation sector. 6 Illustrating the threat, on March 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed indictments of three Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officers and employees of a State Research Center of the Russian Federation FGUP Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics (also known as “TsNIIKhM”) for their involvement in intrusion campaigns against U.S. and international oil refineries, nuclear facilities, and energy companies. Documents revealed that the FSB conducted a multi-stage campaign in which they gained remote access to U.S. and international energy sector networks, deployed industrial control systems (ICS)-focused malware, and collected and exfiltrated enterprise and ICS-related data. 7 Since April 15, 2022, a pro-Russian hacking group known as “Killnet” has targeted a number of transportation entities, including U.S. and European airports and a U.S. oil and natural gas company. Killnet claimed responsibility for an October 10, 2022, cyber incident targeting the public-facing website of 48 airports across the United States, resulting in a number of these websites being unavailable for a period of time.

To counter the threat to critical rail infrastructure, on December 2, 2021, TSA issued Security Directive 1580-21-01 and Security Directive 1582-21-01. These two materially identical security directives—one applicable to specified freight railroad carriers and the other applicable to specified passenger railroad carriers and rail transit systems—required covered owner/operators to implement the following four measures:

• Designate a Cybersecurity Coordinator who is required to be available to TSA and CISA at all times (all hours/all days) to coordinate implementation of cybersecurity practices, manage cybersecurity incidents, and serve as a principal point of contact with TSA and CISA for cybersecurity-related matters;

• Report cybersecurity incidents to CISA;

• Conduct a Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment to identify gaps in current cybersecurity measures, identify remediation measures, and develop a plan for the owner/operator to implement the remediation measures to address any identified vulnerabilities and gaps; and

• Develop a Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan to reduce the risk of operational disruption should their Information and/or Operational Technology systems be affected by a cybersecurity incident.

These directives became effective on December 31, 2021 and were set to expire on December 31, 2022. The TSOB ratified both directives on December 29. 2021. 8

In light of the continuing and evolving threat to critical rail infrastructure, as reflected in recent and ongoing intelligence, TSA determined that it remains necessary for owner/operators of the most critical rail entities to implement cybersecurity measures to prevent disruption and degradation to their infrastructure. TSA issued Security Directive 1580-21-01A and Security Directive 1582-21-01A on October 18, 2022 to extend the expiration date for the initial requirements from December 31, 2022 to October 24, 2023. The directives are available online in TSA's Surface Transportation Cybersecurity Toolkit. 9

The amended directives contain two additional changes from the original directives. First, both amended directives modify the requirement to develop a Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan to require covered entities to continuously update and maintain these plans, once developed. The original directive only required owner/operators to develop a plan by a specific date, but did not provide for ongoing updating and maintenance. Second, Security Directive 1580-21-01A, which applies to freight railroads, broadens the entities covered by the directive to include a small number of additional owner/operators designated and notified by TSA based on a risk determination. Security Directive 1580-21-01A and Security Directive 1582-21-01A became effective on October 24, 2022 and are set to expire on October 24, 2023.

Along with extending the requirements of the previously issued security directives, as amended, TSA determined that additional cybersecurity measures must be implemented due to the extent of the threat reflected by current intelligence. Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01, also issued on October 18, 2022, requires owner/operators to implement additional performance-based cybersecurity measures to prevent disruption and degradation to their critical cyber systems. This approach ensures that the mandated critical security outcomes are achieved while allowing covered owner/operators options to implement security measures for their specific systems and operations. The directive became effective on October 24, 2022, and is set to expire on October 24, 2023.

The performance-based cybersecurity measures required by Security Directive 1580/82-22-01 closely model those required by Security Directive Pipeline-2021-02C  10 issued on July 21, 2022 to owner/operators of critical oil and natural gas pipelines. This framework enhances security by allowing owner/operators to choose the most appropriate methods to protect their specific systems, while mandating that certain security outcomes are achieved. It also provides owner/operators the ability to be agile and adaptive in leveraging innovative technologies in a changing threat environment.

Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01 identifies four critical security outcomes that covered owner/operators would be required to achieve:

• Implement network segmentation policies and controls to ensure that the Operational Technology (OT) system can continue to safely operate in the event that an Information Technology (IT) system has been compromised;

• Implement access control measures to secure and prevent unauthorized access to critical cyber systems;

• Implement continuous monitoring and detection policies and procedures to detect cybersecurity threats and correct anomalies that affect critical cyber system operations; and

• Reduce the risk of exploitation of unpatched systems through the application of security patches and updates for operating systems, applications, drivers, and firmware on critical cyber systems in a timely manner using a risk-based methodology.

For each of these performance outcomes, the directive includes specific issues that must be addressed and provides options for achieving the required outcomes.

To ensure that the critical security outcomes identified are achieved under this performance-based framework, Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01 requires that owner/operators:

• Establish and implement a TSA-approved Cybersecurity Implementation Plan that describes the specific cybersecurity measures employed and the schedule for achieving the security outcomes identified; and

• Establish a Cybersecurity Assessment Program and submit an annual plan that describes how the Owner/Operator will proactively and regularly assess the effectiveness of cybersecurity measures and identify and resolve device, network, and/or system vulnerabilities. 11

Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01 applies to the same TSA-designated higher risk rail entities covered by Security Directive 1580-21-01A and Security Directive 1582-21-01A, 12 including the small number of additional railroads that Security Directive 1580-21-01A was broadened to include. The covered entities are those that the nation depends on to move passengers and transport freight in support of critical sectors, including national defense. Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01 is available online in TSA's Surface Transportation Cybersecurity Toolkit. 13

TSA has broad statutory responsibility and authority to safeguard the nation's transportation system. 14 The TSOB—a body consisting of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of National Intelligence, or their designees, and a representative of the National Security Council—reviews certain TSA regulations and security directives consistent with law. 15 TSA issued each of these security directives under 49 U.S.C. 114( l )(2)(A), which authorizes TSA to issue emergency regulations or security directives without providing notice or public comment where “the Administrator determines that a regulation or security directive must be issued immediately in order to protect transportation security. . . .”. Security directives issued pursuant to the procedures in 49 U.S.C. 114( l )(2) “shall remain effective for a period not to exceed 90 days unless ratified or disapproved by the Board or rescinded by the Administrator.”  16

Following the issuance of Security Directive 1580-21-01A, Security Directive 1582-21-01, and Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01 on October 18, 2022, the chairman of the TSOB convened the board for the purpose of reviewing each directive. In reviewing Security Directive 1580-21-01A, Security Directive 1582-21-01, the TSOB considered the need for owner/operators to maintain the cybersecurity measures required by the amended directives. In reviewing Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01, the TSOB considered its performance-based requirements, including the security outcomes that covered owner/operators must achieve. For all of the directives, the TSOB reviewed the need for TSA to issue the security directives pursuant to its emergency authority under 49 U.S.C. 114(/)(2)(A) to require necessary cybersecurity measures in order to prevent the disruption and degradation of the country's critical rail infrastructure. The TSOB also considered whether to authorize TSA to extend the security directives beyond their current expiration date of October 24, 2023, subject to certain conditions, should the TSA Administrator believe such an extension is necessary to address the evolving threat that may continue beyond the original expiration date.

Following its review, the TSOB ratified Security Directive 1580-21-01A, Security Directive 1582-21-01, and Security Directive 1580/82-2022-01 on November 16, 2022. The TSOB also authorized TSA to extend each of the security directives beyond their current expiration date, should the TSA Administrator determine such an extension is necessary to address the evolving threat that may continue beyond the original expiration date. Such an extension is subject to the following conditions: (1) there are no changes to the security directives other than an extended expiration date; (2) the TSA Administrator makes an affirmative determination that conditions warrant the extension of the directives' requirements; and (3) the TSA Administrator documents such a determination and notifies the TSOB.

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2023 (88 FR 13385). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-43, dated August 9, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require 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 an unannunciated loss or low quantity of fire extinguishing agent in the engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) fire extinguishing bottles. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the inability to extinguish and suppress an engine or APU fire.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0422.

The FAA received comments from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (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.

The FAA reviewed Task 26-20-00-101, “Visual Check of the Engine Fire Extinguishing bottle pressure gauge” and Task 26-20-00-102, “Visual Check of the APU Fire Extinguishing bottle pressure gauge,” of Section 1, “Certification Maintenance Requirements,” Subject 1-26, “Fire Protection,” of the MHI RJ Model CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2C11, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24, and CL-600-2E25 Series 550/700/705/900/1000 Airworthiness Limitations, Maintenance Requirements Manual—Part 2, Volume 1, CSP B-053, Revision 26, dated March 25, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for new airworthiness limitations for certification maintenance requirements.

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 606 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 agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. 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 agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

Background

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 B4-601, A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300 B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, A300 C4-620, A300 F4-605R, and A300 F4-622R airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2023 (88 FR 11827). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0192, dated September 23, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0192) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA explained that EASA AD 2022-0192 specifies that it requires certain tasks (limitations) already in Airbus A300-600 ALS Part 2 DT-ALI, Revision 03, that is required by EASA AD 2019-0090, dated April 26, 2019 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2019-21-01, Amendment 39-19767 (84 FR 56935, October 24, 2019) (AD 2019-21-01)), and that incorporation of EASA AD 2022-0192 invalidates (terminates) prior instructions for those tasks. The NPRM therefore proposed to terminate the limitations required by paragraph (g) of AD 2019-21-01, for the tasks identified in the service information referred to in EASA AD 2022-0192 only, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0192. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0171.

The FAA received comments from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and FedEx. Both commenters 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, considered the comments received, 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 2022-0192 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

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

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. 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 agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-25-16, Amendment 39-22272 (87 FR 77491, December 19, 2022) (AD 2022-25-16), which applied to all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes. AD 2022-25-16 retained certain requirements of AD 2020-09-16 and also required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0062, dated April 8, 2022. The FAA issued AD 2022-25-16 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2023 (88 FR 15333). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022, issued by EASA (EASA AD 2022-0199) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0431.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain certain requirements of AD 2022-25-16. The FAA also proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0199. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received one comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (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, considered the comment received, 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 2022-0199 specifies new or more restrictive maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and components.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0062, dated April 8, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 23, 2023 (87 FR 77491, December 19, 2022).

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

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2022-25-16 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. 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.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

Background

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 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2023 (88 FR 2035). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0194, dated September 23, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0194) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations tasks related to the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators (THSA) are necessary. EASA AD 2022-0194 specifies that revised tasks (limitations) in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 4, System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR) Revision 03, dated August 28, 2017, are required by EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2018-18-21, Amendment 39-19400 (83 FR 47054, September 18, 2018) (AD 2018-18-21)). EASA AD 2022-0194 also specifies that incorporation of EASA AD 2022-0194 invalidates (terminates) prior instructions for the tasks specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), Part 4, System Equipment Maintenance Requirements (SEMR) Revision 03, Variation 3.1, dated June 30, 2022 (Variation 3.1), only. For this AD, the corresponding action is specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, which states that accomplishing the actions specified in this AD terminates the corresponding requirements of AD 2018-18-21, for the tasks identified in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0194 only.

The MCAI also states that EASA AD 2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0081) requires replacement of certain THSA. EASA AD 2015-0081 corresponds to FAA AD 2016-15-01, Amendment 39-18592 (81 FR 47696, July 22, 2016) (AD 2016-15-01). AD 2016-15-01 required inspecting THSA part numbers, serial numbers, and flight cycles on certain THSAs; and repetitive replacement of certain THSAs. The THSA limitation task specified in this AD addresses the actions required by AD 2016-15-01. Paragraph (j)(1) of this AD therefore terminates all of the requirements of AD 2016-15-01, for Model A300-600 series airplanes only.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0194. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the risks associated with the effects of aging on airplane systems. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could change system characteristics, leading to an increased potential for failure of certain life-limited parts, and reduced structural integrity or controllability of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1660.

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

The FAA received an additional comment from United Parcel Service (UPS). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

UPS proposed a bridging plan to transition to the new Variation 3.1 with initial threshold of not to exceed 14,600 flight cycles, with repeat replacement of 13,500 flight cycles. UPS asserted that the restrictive compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD could result in immediate grounding of airplanes with parts currently installed on the airplane accumulating between 13,500 flight cycles and 14,600 flight cycles, since a current parts shortage at repair vendors does not support the increase in number of part removals at the reduced threshold. UPS also noted that AD 2016-15-01 provided a 2-year compliance time for a larger threshold decrease from 47,000 flight cycles to 14,600 flight cycles, and that the current replacement program at 14,600 flight cycles is effective to maintain safety and reliability.

The FAA does not agree with the requested change. The manufacturer has confirmed that adequate parts are available to support the required compliance time. As noted in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, “The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0194 is on or before the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0194, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.” The FAA has determined that the compliance time, as proposed, should allow sufficient time for operators to coordinate with their respective vendors and accomplish the task. In developing an appropriate compliance time, the FAA considered the safety implications, the time necessary to accomplish the required actions, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the required actions. In light of these items, we have determined that the specified compliance time, as proposed, is appropriate. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety. This AD has not been changed with regard to this request.

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, considered the comments received, 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 2022-0194 specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for certain THSAs. 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 ADDRESSES .

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. 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 agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-06-07, Amendment 39-18831 (82 FR 17107, April 10, 2017) (AD 2017-06-07). AD 2017-06-07 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes; A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes; A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes; A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes; A340-541 airplanes; and A340-642 airplanes. AD 2017-06-07 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2016-0231, dated November 22, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0231), which superseded EASA AD 2016-0082, dated April 27, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition. AD 2017-06-07 required identification of potentially affected inboard flap parts, a one-time eddy current inspection to identify which material the parts are made of, and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts. The FAA issued AD 2017-06-07 to detect and correct structural parts of inboard flaps made of nonconforming aluminum alloy, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2023 (88 FR 14303). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0189, dated September 19, 2022, issued by EASA (EASA AD 2022-0189) (also referred to as the MCAI), which superseded EASA AD 2016-0231. The MCAI states that since EASA AD 2016-0231 was issued, it was determined that, even if affected inboard flaps were not installed on airplanes during production, affected inboard flaps could be installed on airplanes as spare parts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0428.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2017-06-07, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0189. The NPRM also proposed to reduce the allowance for the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received one comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (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, considered the comment received, 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 2022-0189 specifies procedures for identification of potentially affected inboard flap parts, a one-time special detailed inspection (eddy current) to identify which material the parts are made of, and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts. The MCAI also reduces the allowance for the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. 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 36 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 action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-0443 in the Federal Register (88 FR 17436; March 23, 2023), establishing the Class E airspace at Sandusky, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The NPRM was inadvertently published twice (88 FR 13744; March 6, 2023), under the same docket number (FAA-2023-0443). The two documents are identical. No comments were received in response to either publication.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, 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. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Sandusky City Airport, Sandusky, MI.

This action supports new public instrument procedures.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Nashville, TN, Class C airspace area, and the John C. Tune Airport Class D airspace area as necessary to enhance aviation safety in the Nashville terminal area.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2022-1678, in the Federal Register (88 FR 5283; January 27, 2023), proposing to amend the Nashville, TN, Class C airspace area, and the John C. Tune Class D airspace area. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Twenty-five comments were received.

One commenter wrote that BNA should be upgraded to a Class B airspace area, while two commenters were not in favor of Class B airspace at BNA. The NPRM proposed modifications to the existing Class C airspace area at BNA. Class B airspace at BNA is not being proposed, therefore it is outside the scope of this rulemaking action. While BNA currently meets the Class B enplaned passenger count criteria, at this time, it does not meet the total airport operations criteria to be considered as a candidate for a Class B airspace designation.

The majority of the comments concerned the impacts of the proposed lateral and vertical boundaries of the BNA Class C 15 nautical miles (NM) eastern outer ring on aircraft arriving at Lebanon Municipal Airport (M54). The 15 NM ring moves the Class C boundary to a point approximately 3 NM west of M54. Commenters wrote that M54 needs more space to maneuver. They stated that, when the wind is from the north, aircraft entering the traffic pattern for runway 01 at M54 would be concentrated into the already congested area west of M54 between the airport, and the eastern 15 NM ring of Class C airspace. As a result, pilots would be focusing on remaining clear of the Class C airspace while either just transiting northbound or southbound through the area or entering the traffic pattern downwind leg to land on runway 01 at M54. This could lead to unintended incursions into the Class C airspace.

The commenters made several suggestions for alleviating these concerns, including:

• Raising the floor in a portion of the eastern outer ring of the Class C airspace ( e.g., from the 060° bearing from BNA, clockwise to the 155° bearing from BNA, etc.) from 2,400 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 2,600 feet MSL, which would be 1,000 feet above M54's traffic pattern altitude.

• Adding a cutout from the Class C within a 5 NM radius of M54.

• Moving the 15 NM outer east ring boundary westward, farther away from M54. One commenter suggested aligning the east ring boundary along Interstate I-840 and Highway 109 providing a visual landmark to define the boundary.

The FAA considered the commenters' suggestions; however, each suggestion would result in reduced Class C airspace in areas where airspace control and communications between air traffic control (ATC) and all aircraft is warranted. Class C airspace is designed to keep ATC informed of all aircraft operating within the Class C area. This is important so that air traffic controllers are aware of all pilots' intentions. Heading and/or altitude changes made by unidentified, non-participating pilots are unpredictable, which may require controllers to take preventative action to avoid potential conflicts with other aircraft that are under their control. Such circumstances may disrupt the orderly flow of arrivals and departures as well as increase controller workload.

Regarding the suggestion to raise the east outer ring floor to 2,600-foot MSL, the purpose of setting the east outer ring floor at 2,400 feet MSL is to allow ATC to provide needed separation between all Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft landing on runway 19 at Smyrna Airport (MQY), and non-participating Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft. Aircraft flying the published instrument approach to MQY runway 19 cross the WULIG waypoint (WP) (located approximately 11 NM northeast of MQY) at 3,000 feet MSL. As MQY traffic volume continues to increase, aircraft are being sequenced at or before the WULIG WP on the runway 19 instrument approach. Raising the outer ring floor to 2,600 feet MSL reduces effective separation outside of WULIG and increases the likelihood of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisory (RA) events for inbound aircraft.

Regarding the suggestions to move the eastern ring boundary westward, away from M54, the FAA is unable to adopt the suggestions. When aircraft are arriving and departing BNA to the north, numerous aircraft depart from runway 02R on a noise abatement heading of 055°. BNA departures are vectored into the eastern ring area to remain clear of BNA arrivals that are descending on the PASLY Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR). Currently, to clear aircraft on the STAR, BNA departure traffic must remain at 4,000 feet MSL. Additionally, the volume of pilot training traffic generated by flight schools operating in this area from airports east of BNA, including M54, MQY, and Murfreesboro Municipal (MBT), underscores the need for expanded Class C airspace in the east outer ring out to 15 NM.

Several commenters expressed concerns regarding controller staffing levels at BNA Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) in light of increasing traffic volume and controller workload. The FAA will continue to provide VFR flight following services as duty priorities allow. A larger area of controlled airspace will significantly increase safety for all users but may result in increased demand for air traffic services.

Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000, and Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part by expanding the BNA Class C airspace area and lowering the ceiling of the JWN Class D airspace area (see the attached chart).

This action makes minor edits in the text header of the BNA Class C airspace description, as published in FAA Order JO 7400.11, by updating the BNA airport reference point (ARP) coordinates from “lat. 36°07′28″ N, long. 86°40′42″ W” to “lat. 36°07′28″ N, long. 86°40′41″ W” This reflects the latest information in the Airport Master Records file. In addition, the Smyrna Airport, TN (MQY), is added to the text header because that airport is referenced in the Class C description. The Class C modifications are described below.

This action raises the BNA Class C airspace area ceiling from 4,600 feet MSL up to and including 6,000 feet MSL and extends the outer ring of the Class C airspace area from the current 10 NM radius from BNA to the 15 NM radius from BNA.

Additionally, the Class C surface area radius is extended from the current 5 NM radius from BNA to the 7 NM radius from BNA, starting from the 335° bearing from the airport, clockwise to the 230° bearing from the airport. However, the surface area radius remains at 5 NM from BNA from the 230° bearing, clockwise to the 335° bearing from the airport. The Class C surface area also excludes that portion of airspace that is within the Smyrna Airport Class D airspace area. The BNA Class C airspace also includes:

• That airspace extending upward from 1,800 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of Nashville International Airport from the 335° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 060° bearing from the airport;

• That airspace extending upward from 2,400 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of the airport from the 060° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 155° bearing from the airport, excluding that portion within the Smyrna Airport, TN, Class D airspace area;

• That airspace extending upward from 1,800 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of Nashville International Airport from the 155° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 230° bearing from the airport; and

• That airspace extending upward from 2,400 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of Nashville International Airport from the 230° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 335° bearing from the airport.

This action also amends the John C. Tune Airport (JWN) Class D airspace area by replacing the current 2,500-foot MSL ceiling with “to but not including 2,400 feet MSL.” The westward expansion of the BNA Class C airspace, with a floor of 2,400 feet MSL, overlies the JWN Class D airspace. Lowering the JWN Class D ceiling as described creates a clearer delineation between the Class C and Class D airspace areas, thus reducing the potential for pilot confusion over the airspace status.

Annual air traffic volume in BNA TRACON's area has increased by 49.2% since 2015, including significant volume increases at M54, JWN, MQY, and BNA airports. Due to the continuing rise in traffic, the predictability resulting from the BNA Class C airspace modification is needed to provide a safe and stable environment for arrivals and departures at BNA as well as the surrounding airports.

This rulemaking action is required to reduce the risk of midair collisions and enhance the efficient management of air traffic operations in the Nashville, TN, terminal area.

Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million using the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: will have a minimal cost impact; is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

As discussed above, the FAA determined that changes put forth in this final rule will reduce the risk of midair collisions, efficiency, and airspace utilization. The final rule reconfigures BNA Class C airspace area and amends the ceiling of JWN Class D airspace area. Operations at BNA are rebounding from the drop in traffic that resulted during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. In addition, air traffic in the Nashville terminal area has increased dramatically in all categories of aircraft. The existing Class C airspace no longer meets the needs of air traffic control and enhanced safety in the BNA terminal area. The goals of the final rule are to reduce the risk of midair collisions and improve the efficient management of air traffic operations in the Nashville, TN, terminal area.

The final rule modifies the BNA Class C airspace area and requires VFR aircraft to establish radio contact with ATC thereby enhancing safety and efficiency in the BNA terminal area. VFR operators only needs to make minor adjustments to accommodate the expanded availability of Class C services around BNA. Therefore, the FAA expects the final rule will result in minimal cost to VFR operators.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The final rule reconfigures BNA Class C airspace area and amends the ceiling JWN Class D airspace area. The FAA is taking this action to reduce the risk of midair collisions and enhance the efficient management of air traffic operations in the Nashville, TN, terminal area. The FAA determined that changes put forth in this rule increase airspace safety and efficiency.

The change affects general aviation operators using BNA Class C airspace area and amends the ceiling JWN Class D airspace area. Operators flying VFR needs to adjust their flight paths to avoid the modified Class C airspace and Class D airspace if the pilots wish to operate without contacting ATC. However, the modifications are intended to address the concerns raised by air traffic without being burdensome. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a state, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. The FAA determined that the final rule will not result in the expenditure of $177 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the Act does not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

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

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

Electronic Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

On October 29, 2015, OFAC issued GL 2 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548, and Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus” (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006). Subsequently, OFAC issued eight further iterations of GL 2: on April 28, 2016, OFAC issued GL 2A, which superseded GL 2; on October 18, 2016, OFAC issued GL 2B, which superseded GL 2A; on April 28, 2017, OFAC issued GL 2C, which superseded GL 2B; on October 24, 2017, OFAC issued GL 2D, which superseded GL 2C; on April 27, 2018, OFAC issued GL 2E, which superseded GL 2D; on October 24, 2018, OFAC issued GL 2F, which superseded GL 2E; on October 22, 2019, OFAC issued GL 2G, which superseded GL 2F; and on April 19, 2021, OFAC issued GL 2H, which superseded GL 2G. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website ( www.treas.gov/ofac ) when it was issued. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (a) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(c) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (a), above.

(d) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (a) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 15 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $10,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $10,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(e) This authorization expires on April 30, 2016, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2, dated October 29, 2015, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2A.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

This authorization expires on October 31, 2016, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2A, dated April 28, 2016, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2B.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(f) This authorization expires on April 17, 2017, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2B, dated October 18, 2016, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2C.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(f) This authorization expires on October 30, 2017, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2C, dated April 28, 2017, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2D.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(f) This authorization expires on April 30, 2018, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2D, dated October 24, 2017, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2E.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(f) This authorization expires on October 30, 2018, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2E, dated April 27, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2F.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(f) This authorization expires on October 25, 2019, unless extended or revoked.

(a) General License No. 2F, dated October 24, 2018, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2G.

(b) Effective October 30, 2015, except as provided in paragraphs (c) through (f) below, all transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 involving the following named entities, or any entities that are owned, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more of the following named entities, are authorized:

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of the entities described in paragraph (b) that were blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 prior to October 30, 2015 remain blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(d) This general license does not authorize transactions, directly or indirectly, with any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR 548.201(a) or Executive Order 13405, even if those transactions are conducted through any of the entities described in paragraph (b), above.

(e) U.S. persons engaging in transactions involving, directly or indirectly, any of the entities described in paragraph (b) as authorized by this general license are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction in excess of $50,000, or any series of such transactions exceeding $50,000, to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov.

(f) This authorization expires at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on April 26, 2021 unless extended or revoked.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions and activities prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (the BSR), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving the following named entities or any entities in which the following named entities own, individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, June 3, 2021:

(b) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The unblocking of any property blocked pursuant to any part of 31 CFR chapter V, including all property and interests in property of the blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) of this general license that were blocked prior to October 30, 2015; or

(2) Any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by the BSR, or prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, statute, or Executive order, or involving any blocked persons other than the blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) of this general license.

(c) U.S. persons participating in a transaction, or series of transactions, authorized by this general license, in excess of $50,000 are required, no later than 30 days after the execution of any such transaction(s), to file a report with the U.S. Department of State, Office of Eastern European Affairs, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520. Reports may also be filed via email to BelarusGL@state.gov. Such reports shall include the following numbered sections and information:

(1) Estimated or actual dollar value of the transaction(s), as determined by the value of the goods, services, or contract;

(2) The parties involved;

(3) The type and scope of activities conducted; and

(4) The dates or duration of the activities.

(d) Effective April 19, 2021, General License No. 2G, dated October 22, 2019, is replaced and superseded in its entirety by this General License No. 2H.

Electronic Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

On September 4, 2008, OFAC issued GL 1 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus” (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006). Subsequently, OFAC issued four further iterations of GL 1: on February 19, 2009, OFAC issued GL 1-A, which superseded GL 1; on May 21, 2009, OFAC issued GL 1-B, which superseded GL 1-A; on November 13, 2009, OFAC issued GL 1-C, which superseded GL 1-B; and on May 17, 2010, OFAC issued GL 1-D, which superseded GL 1-C. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website ( www.treas.gov/ofac ) when it was issued. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Effective September 4, 2008, all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, two entities that were designated on May 15, 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006 (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006) (“E.O. 13405”), are authorized for a period of 180 days [until March 2, 2009].

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO that were previously blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 remain blocked. A U.S. person may not procure goods, services, or technology from, or engage in transactions with, any other blocked person directly or indirectly through Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO.

(a) Effective September 4, 2008, all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, two entities that were designated on May 15, 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006 (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006) (“E.O. 13405”), are authorized for a period of 270 days [until June 1, 2009].

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO that were previously blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 remain blocked. A U.S. person may not procure goods, services, or technology from, or engage in transactions with, any other blocked person directly or indirectly through Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO.

(a) Effective September 4, 2008, all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, two entities that were designated on May 15, 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006 (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006) (“E.O. 13405”), are authorized. This authorization extends until November 30, 2009.

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO that were previously blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 remain blocked. A U.S. person may not procure goods, services, or technology from, or engage in transactions with, any other blocked person directly or indirectly through Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO.

(a) Effective September 4, 2008, all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, two entities that were designated on May 15, 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006 (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006) (“E.O. 13405”), are authorized. This authorization extends until May 31, 2010.

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO that were previously blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 remain blocked. A U.S. person may not procure goods, services, or technology from, or engage in transactions with, any other blocked person directly or indirectly through Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO.

(a) Effective September 4, 2008, all transactions between U.S. persons and Lakokraska OAO and/or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO, two entities that were designated on May 15, 2008, pursuant to Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006 (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006) (“E.O. 13405”), are authorized. This authorization extends until November 30, 2010.

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, all property and interests in property of Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO that were previously blocked pursuant to E.O. 13405 remain blocked. A U.S. person may not procure goods, services, or technology from, or engage in transactions with, any other blocked person directly or indirectly through Lakokraska OAO or Polotsk Steklovolokno OAO.

Electronic Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: www.treas.gov/ofac.

On June 21, 2021, OFAC issued GL 3 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (the BSR). On August 9, 2021, OFAC issued GL 4, and on December 2, 2021, OFAC issued GL 5, each to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14038 of August 9, 2021, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Belarus” (86 FR 43905, August 11, 2021). On February 24, 2022, OFAC issued GL 6 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the BSR. On February 24, 2022, OFAC issued GL 7 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the BSR and E.O. 14038. On March 22, 2023, OFAC incorporated the prohibitions of E.O. 14038, as well as any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13405 of June 16, 2006, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus” (71 FR 35485, June 20, 2006), into the BSR. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website ( www.treas.gov/ofac ) when it was issued. The text of these GLs is provided below.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions and activities prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 548 (the BSR), involving the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus (the Belarusian KGB) are authorized, provided that such transactions and activities are necessary and ordinarily incident to:

(1) Requesting, receiving, utilizing, paying for, or dealing in licenses, permits, certifications, or notifications issued or registered by the Belarusian KGB for the importation, distribution, or use of information technology products in Belarus, provided that (i) the exportation, reexportation, or provision of any goods or technology that are subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774, is licensed or otherwise authorized by the Department of Commerce; and (ii) the payment of any fees to the Belarusian KGB for such licenses, permits, certifications, or notifications does not exceed $5,000 in any calendar year;

(2) Complying with law enforcement or administrative actions or investigations involving the Belarusian KGB; and

(3) Complying with rules and regulations administered by the Belarusian KGB.

(b) This general license does not authorize:

(1) The transfer of any property or debiting of any account blocked pursuant to any Executive order, statute, or 31 CFR chapter V; or

(2) Any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by the BSR, prohibited by any other part of 31 CFR chapter V, statute, or Executive order, or involving any blocked person other than the blocked person described in paragraph (a) of this general license.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions and activities prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) of August 9, 2021 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving Belaruskali OAO, or any entity in which Belaruskali OAO owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, December 8, 2021.

(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by E.O. of August 9, 2021, or prohibited by any part of 31 CFR chapter V, statute, or other E.O., or involving any blocked persons other than the blocked persons identified in paragraph (a) of this general license.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions and activities prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14038 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of transactions involving Open Joint Stock Company Belarusian Potash Company (BPC) or Agrorozkvit LLC, or any entity in which BPC or Agrorozkvit LLC owns, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest, including the wind down of such transactions in which Belaruskali OAO has a property interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, April 1, 2022.

(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions or activities otherwise prohibited by E.O. 14038, or prohibited by any part of 31 CFR chapter V, statute, or other E.O., or involving any blocked persons except as authorized in paragraph (a) of this general license.

All transactions prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 548, that are for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized.

All transactions prohibited by the Belarus Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR 548, or Executive Order 14038 that are for the conduct of the official business of the following entities by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof are authorized:

(a) The United Nations, including its Programmes, Funds, and Other Entities and Bodies, as well as its Specialized Agencies and Related Organizations;

(b) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA);

(c) The African Development Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group), including any fund entity administered or established by any of the foregoing; and

(d) The International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) in 33 CFR 100.501, for the regulated area of the Escape the Cape Swim from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on June 11, 2023. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the “Escape the Cape Swim” which encompasses portions of the Delaware Bay off Lower Township, NJ. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 100.100(g), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area, you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign. Non-participants are only allowed inside the regulated area to pass through or enter and remain within a designated spectator area. A non-participant must contact the Event Patrol Commander or an official patrol vessel to request permission to either enter the Spectator Area or pass through the regulated area.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) in 33 CFR 100.501 for the regulated area of the Around the Island Paddle from 8 a.m. through 1 p.m. on June 25, 2023. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the “Around the Island Paddle” which encompasses portions of Cape May Harbor, Atlantic Ocean, and Delaware Bay in Cape May, NJ. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 100.100(g), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area, you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign. Non-participants are only allowed inside the regulated area to pass through or enter and remain within a designated spectator area. A non-participant must contact the Event Patrol Commander or an official patrol vessel to request permission to either enter the Spectator Area or pass through the regulated area.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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 publishing an NPRM would be impractical and contrary to the public interest due to the date the event is taking place. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by June 17, 2023, to guard against potential hazards associated with this series of events. Potential safety hazards include the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest due to the date the event is taking place and the need to protect against associated potential hazards. It would be impracticable to wait 30 days after publishing because we must establish this safety zone by June 17, 2023.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with Celebrations Cruise fireworks, on June 17, July 1, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 19, and September 2, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within the fallout zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks displays.

This rule establishes a safety zone from June 17, 2023, through September 2, 2023. The zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on each of the following days in 2023: June 17, July 1, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 19, and September 2. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within the outlined fallout zone, on the Lake of the Ozarks, between Mile Markers .5 to 1 approximately 500 feet southwest of the Bagnell Dam. The duration of enforcement of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to transit the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on a series of fireworks displays that impact a one half mile stretch of the Lake of the Ozarks mile marker .5 to mile marker 1 approximately 500 feet southwest of the Bagnell Dam on June 17, July 1, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 19, and September 2, 2023 from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, mariners may 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on June 17, July 1, July 8, July 15, July 22, July 29, August 5, August 19, and September 2, 2023, that will prohibit entry on the Lake of the Ozarks between MM .5 to MM 1 approximately 500 feet southwest of the Bagnell Dam. 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. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 1 for a barge-based fireworks display from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, or a rain date of July 5, 2023. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 1, specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, in the vicinity of the shoreline at Avalon, NJ, within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the fireworks barge is latitude 39°06′17.96″ N, longitude 074°42′05.47″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the security zone for the Portland Rose Festival in 33 CFR 165.1312 for the Willamette River regulated area from noon on June 6, 2023 through noon on June 12, 2023. This action is necessary to ensure the security of vessels participating in the 2023 Portland Rose Festival on the Willamette River during the event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1312 and subpart D of Part 165, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the security zone, consisting of all waters of the Willamette River, from surface to bottom, encompassed by the Hawthorne and Steel Bridges, without permission from the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port. Persons or vessels wishing to enter the security zone may request permission to do so from the on-scene Captain of the Port representative via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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 it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This safety zone must be established by June 19, 2023, to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a firework display, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the firework display. Vessels inside of the safety zone have the potential of getting hit by firework debris.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because action is needed by June 19, 2023, to ensure the safety of the of life on the navigable waters during the firework display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a firework show on June 19, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Allegheny River from mile markers 0.0 to mile marker 0.3 from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of the participant, vessels, and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 19, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Allegheny River from mile markers 0.0 to mile marker 0.3. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters during a firework display.

No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative of the COTP. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of the COTP. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh at 412-221-0807. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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).

This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone only impacts a 0.3 mile stretch on the Allegheny River for 30 minutes on June 19, 2023. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce multiple safety zones for annual events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 165.939 for events occurring in the month of July as listed in the DATES section above. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry No. 12, for a barge-based fireworks display from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, or on a rain date of July 5, 2023. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after a fireworks display. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 12 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the Delaware Bay off Lewes, DE, within a 350-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the display is latitude 38°47′12″ N, longitude 075°07′48″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce safety zones in the table to 33 CFR 165.1315(a) for the following events during the designated enforcement periods within a 450-yard radius of the launch site at the listed locations. These safety zones are subject to enforcement at least 1 hour prior to the start and 1 hour after the conclusion of the events.

All coordinates listed in the Table reference Datum NAD 1983.

During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1315(a), persons and vessels are prohibited from being in the regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of these enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast notice to mariners.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry No. 7 for a barge-based fireworks display from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, or on a rain date of July 5, 2023. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after a fireworks display. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 7 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Little Egg Harbor within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the barge is latitude 39°34′18.77″ N, longitude 074°14′36.2″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

On August 3, 2020, the USPTO published a final rule in the Federal Register that included a new fee set forth in § 1.16(u) with an effective date of January 1, 2022. See Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2020, 85 FR 46932. As specified in § 1.16(u), the fee is due for any application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 for an original patent—except design, plant, or provisional applications—where the specification, claims, and/or abstract do not conform to the USPTO requirements for submission in the DOCX format. Therefore, the fee is due for nonprovisional utility applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, including continuing applications, that are not filed in the DOCX format.

Currently, applicants may file patent applications in the DOCX format through EFS-Web and Patent Center. The USPTO plans to retire EFS-Web and therefore encourages stakeholders and applicants to review the information about Patent Center available at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. The USPTO continues to hold many discussions and training sessions with stakeholders to ensure a fair and reasonable transition to the DOCX format.

The USPTO is delaying the effective date of the fee set forth in § 1.16(u) until January 17, 2024. This further delay will give the USPTO an opportunity, through a separate Federal Register Notice, to invite and consider public comments on a proposed information collection pertaining to the impact of the § 1.16(u) fee on the filing of nonprovisional utility applications under 35 U.S.C. 111, including continuing applications. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the USPTO will submit the proposed information collection together with a summary of any received comments to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the PRA. Federal Register Notices published by the USPTO pertaining to the PRA are available at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/federal-register-notices/federal-register-notices-2023. The USPTO expects that this delay will afford sufficient time to complete the PRA clearance process.

This delay will also provide applicants more time to adjust to filing patent applications in the DOCX format. Applicants are encouraged to begin filing patent applications in the DOCX format before the new effective date of the fee. The USPTO also reminds applicants that they can file test submissions through the Patent Center training mode to practice filing in DOCX. Applicants who have not yet taken advantage of the DOCX training sessions the USPTO hosts are encouraged to do so. Information on filing application documents in DOCX and a link to the DOCX training sessions are available at www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.

A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule revises the effective date of a final rule published on August 3, 2020, implementing a non-DOCX filing surcharge fee, and is a rule of agency practice and procedure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). See JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[T]he `critical feature' of the procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.' ” (quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980))); see also Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. F.C.C., 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims). Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))).

Moreover, the Director of the USPTO, pursuant to the authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), finds good cause to adopt the change to the effective date of § 1.16(u) in this final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, as such procedures would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The change to the effective date will provide the public an opportunity to more fully comprehend the nature of, and prepare to comply with, the DOCX format before the new fee is effective, as well as provide the USPTO sufficient time to complete the PRA clearance process for the new fee. Delay of this provision to provide prior notice-and-comment procedures is also impracticable because it would allow § 1.16(u) to go into effect before the public is ready for the DOCX format. The Director finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this rule. Immediate implementation of the delay in the effective date of the fee is in the public interest because it will provide the public an opportunity to more fully comprehend the nature of, and prepare to comply with, the DOCX format before the new fee in § 1.16(u) is effective, as well as provide the USPTO sufficient time to complete the PRA clearance process for the new fee.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a regulatory flexibility analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

D. Paperwork Reduction Act: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the USPTO consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The USPTO has determined that there are no new requirements for information collection associated with this final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the USPTO amends 37 CFR part 1 as follows:

When the Postal Service makes a tentative decision to relocate all retail services from a retail service facility to a separate physical building, or to add a new retail service facility for a community, it provides advance notification to the community and solicits community comments. 39 CFR 241.4(a)(1). The Postal Service considers community comments before reaching a final decision to proceed with, modify, or cancel the proposed relocation or addition. Id. 241.4(c)(4). Exceptions to the general notification requirement apply to certain temporary or emergency relocations. 39 CFR 241.4(a)(2). The purpose of the regulation is to notify members of the community and their elected officials of retail service facility relocations and additions, and to provide them the opportunity to comment on why the Postal Service's tentative decision and proposal may not be the optimal solution for the Postal Service's identified need. 39 CFR 241.4(c)(4). To obtain this community input, prior to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Postal Service notified the community through a news release and a public presentation, either as part of the agenda at a regularly scheduled public meeting of local officials or at a separately scheduled Postal Service public meeting addressing the proposal. 39 CFR 241.4(c)(2). The regulation presently allows for an alternate method of notifying the community under exceptional circumstances that would prevent a Postal Service representative from attending or conducting a public meeting . . . the Postal Service, in lieu of a public meeting, will mail written notification of the tentative decision and the proposal to customers within the community . . . seeking their written input on the proposal and providing an address to which the community and local officials may send written appeals of the tentative decision and comments on the proposal. 39 CFR 241.4(c)(3).

During the effectiveness of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' Determination of a Public Health Emergency related to COVID-19, the Postal Service has mailed postcards to communities affected by relocations and additions of retail service facilities to provide notice and solicit comments, rather than holding public meetings. This written notification proved to be a more effective means of communicating and provided community members with a more accessible method of providing comments. Because written notification and solicitation of comments more effectively and accessibly engages members of affected communities than do public meetings, the Postal Service, through this interim rule, establishes written notification as the standard method of soliciting community comments for all subject relocations and additions, rather than just under the exceptional circumstances set forth in 39 CFR 241.4(c)(3).

In addition, the interim rule clarifies the scope of relocations subject to the notification requirement in a manner that excludes a move within a single development, such as among storefronts within a single shopping center, because such relocations have a de minimis effect on the availability of retail services in a community. Paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A)( 4 ) required that, as part of this process, the Postal Service inform the community of any construction that may be necessary when a retail service facility is added. Because the Postal Service is already required to inform the community of any decisions to undertake construction pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 409(f), this requirement was also deleted to avoid duplicating efforts. Finally, minor technical amendments were made to the language of the regulation.

The interim rule will benefit the Postal Service and the public in general. It will reduce burdens on the Postal Service and the public by recognizing that relocations of retail service facilities within a single development are not relocations that would materially affect communities. In addition, where relocation decisions would benefit from community input, the modified regulation will provide improved notice to the public and an easier and more accessible means of receiving community input.

This interim rule reflects the procedures in place since 2020 for notifying communities of retail service facility relocations and additions, and imposes no burden on members of the public; therefore, it is effective immediately.

Although exempted by 39 U.S.C. 410(a) from the advance notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act regarding proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553), the Postal Service invites public comment at the above address and will consider any comments received before issuing a final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 241 as set forth below:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On January 30, 2023, EPA proposed to approve SIP revisions that consist of several additions, corrections, and clarifications to the Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC) NR 400 series and update the VOC RACT requirements for the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) source categories. Also, EPA proposed to approve Wisconsin's August 10, 2022, request to remove three previously EPA approved Wisconsin Administrative Orders from the SIP. An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking (88 FR 5840) and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on March 1, 2023. EPA received no adverse comments on the proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

EPA is approving in the Wisconsin SIP additions, corrections, and clarifications related to rules in WAC Chapters 400, 419, 421, 422, 423, 425, 439, and 484. Specifically we are approving NR 400.02(intro.), NR 419.02(intro.), NR 421.02(intro.), NR 422.01, NR 422.02, NR 422.03, NR 422.04, NR 422.05, NR 422.06, NR 422.08, NR 422.083, NR 422.084, NR 422.127, NR 422.128, NR 422.14, NR 422.145, NR 422.15, NR 422.151, NR 423.035(2)(a)1., NR 423.037(2)(a)1., NR 425.04(3)(a), NR 439.04(4) and (5), and NR 484.10 Table 5 Rows (9) and (25m), as published in the Wisconsin Register, May 2022 No. 797, effective June 1, 2022. These revisions are consistent with the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTGs issued by EPA in 2008. These revisions are approvable because they serve as SIP strengthening measures for Wisconsin's VOC rules. Also, EPA is approving Wisconsin's request for the removal of the previously approved Administrative Orders AM-20-01, AM-20-02, and AM-20-03, submitted in a letter from WDNR on August 10, 2022. When EPA approves this action, it concurrently removes these three Administrative Orders from the Wisconsin SIP. The SIP revisions under Wisconsin Board Order AM-20-18 replace AM-20-01, AM-20-02, and AM-20-03.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin regulations described in sections I and II of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52, below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Also in this document, as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved Wisconsin Regulations and Statutes from the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

WDNR did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, 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).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7, 2023. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

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

I. Background

On October 4, 2021, the NTSB issued an IFR, soliciting public comments on its amendment of the agency's Internal Personnel Rules and Practices. The IFR reflected that the agency closed its “public reference room” and made qualifying records electronically available. 86 FR 54641 (Oct. 4, 2021). Moreover, the agency removed an outdated paragraph describing a particular category of exempted records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The revisions to the NTSB FOIA regulation were issued as an IFR to ensure that updated regulations were in place as soon as practicable per Milner v. Department of the Navy, 131 S.Ct. 1259 (2011). The IFR comment period closed on December 3, 2021.

On December 30, 2021, the NTSB issued a correcting amendment to revise the wording of certain regulations in part 801 affected by the IFR's amendatory language. 86 FR 74377 (Dec. 30, 2021). By revising all references to “public reading room” to read “electronic reading room”, that amendatory instruction resulted in the needless repetition of the word “electronic reading room” in 49 CFR 801.10(b)(2), 801.10(c), 801.30, 801.31, 801.32(b), 801.41. The correcting amendment revised the aforementioned regulations to reflect the agency's original intent for part 801.

On November 28, 2021, the agency received one comment in response to the IFR. Thomas M. Kowalick, Chair, Standard for Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorder, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers proffered the following amendatory language:

The NTSB's Response: The NTSB appreciates the suggested amendatory language, but the agency finds that this comment is not significant for rulemaking purposes. Specifically, the proposed language pertains to an Auto Safety Trust Fund, which is beyond the scope of this rulemaking as it neither relates to Internal Personnel Rules and Practices, nor recommends changes proposed by the NTSB. Therefore, the NTSB need not address this comment any further.

Because the NTSB is an independent agency, this final rule does not require an assessment of its potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). In addition, the NTSB has considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The NTSB certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The NTSB does not anticipate this rule will have a substantial, direct effect on state or local governments or will preempt state law; as such, this rule does not have implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999).

This rule complies with all applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The NTSB has evaluated this rule under: E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Judice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994); E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 21, 1997); E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000); E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001); and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-47. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the NTSB has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The NTSB has concluded that this final rule neither violates nor requires further consideration under those orders, statutes, E.O.s, and acts.

Background

Section 118(f) of the MMPA requires NMFS to develop and implement take reduction plans to assist in the recovery of, or prevent the depletion of, each strategic marine mammal stock that interacts with Category I or II fisheries. Category I fisheries are fisheries that have frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, and Category II fisheries are fisheries that have occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. The MMPA also provides NMFS discretion to develop and implement a take reduction plan for any other marine mammal stocks that interact with a Category I fishery, which the agency determines, after notice and opportunity for public comment, has a high level of mortality and serious injury across a number of such marine mammal stocks.

The MMPA defines a strategic stock as a marine mammal stock: (1) for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal (PBR) level; (2) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the foreseeable future; or (3) which is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or is designated as a depleted species under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(19)). The PBR level is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, which can be removed annually from a stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population level (50 CFR 229.2).

In accordance with section 118(f) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387), the immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, within 6 months of its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals taken in the course of commercial fishing operations to levels less than the PBR level for the stock. The long-term goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, within 5 years of its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals taken in the course of commercial fishing to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate ( i.e., insignificance threshold or zero mortality rate goal), which is 10 percent of the PBR level for a marine mammal stock (69 FR 43338, July 20, 2004). The long-term goal takes into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans. The MMPA also requires NMFS to amend take reduction plans and implementing regulations as needed to meet these requirements and goals.

NMFS announced the establishment of the PLTRT on June 22, 2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR 36120). Four professionally-facilitated meetings and two full-team conference calls were held between June 2005 and May 2006. The PLTRT reached consensus at the May 2006 meeting, and on June 8, 2006, submitted to NMFS a Draft PLTRP, including recommendations for take reduction measures, as well as research needs and other non-regulatory measures (PLTRT, 2006). Based on the Draft PLTRP, NMFS published a proposed rule (73 FR 35623, June 24, 2008) and a final rule (74 FR 23349, May 19, 2009) implementing the PLTRP, which became effective on June 18, 2009 (50 CFR 229.36).

The existing regulatory measures in the PLTRP, include (1) the Cape Hatteras Special Research Area (CHSRA) in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) with special observer and research participation requirements for fishermen operating in that area; (2) a 20 nmi (37.04 km) limit on mainline length for all Atlantic pelagic longline sets within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) portion of the MAB; and (3) a requirement that an informational placard regarding marine mammal handling/release guidelines be posted inside the wheelhouse and on the working deck of all Atlantic pelagic longline vessels operating in the EEZ off the U.S. east coast.

Since implementation of the PLTRP, the Team has continued to monitor the effectiveness of the Plan and review recent research relevant to the PLTRT and new scientific information on updated estimates of abundance and mortality and serious injury for pilot whales and Risso's dolphins. NMFS convened two professionally-facilitated in-person meetings (August 2012 and December 2015) and six webinars/conference calls (September 2010, June 2014, March 2015, September 2016, October 2016, and September 2019). During the 2015 and 2016 meetings, the discussions and ultimately the consensus recommendations were focused on reducing mortality and serious injury of the Western North Atlantic stock of short-finned pilot whales. The PLTRP has not yet met its long-term goal of effectively reducing short-finned pilot whale mortality and serious injury incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to below the insignificance threshold of 10 percent of the PBR level.

The proposed rule to amend the PLTRP was published on December 15, 2020 (85 FR 81168). NMFS received 16 public comments. Additional background information is provided in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

As described below, this amendment to the PLTRP includes the following regulatory components: (1) removes Risso's dolphins ( Grampus griseus ) and long-finned pilot whales ( Globicephala melas melas ) from the Plan's purpose and scope (2) removes the CHSRA and its special observer and research participation requirements, (3) modifies the current mainline length restrictions in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ portion of the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) statistical area, and (4) implements terminal gear requirements in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ.

The amendment also includes two non-regulatory measures of the PLTRP: (1) convening a safe handling and release work group to update protocols for marine mammal interactions in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery, and (2) updating observer protocols and fishery observer data forms to increase information collected from marine mammal interaction and depredation events in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.

The other requirements ( e.g., posting the Marine Mammal Handling and Release Placard in the wheelhouse and on deck) of the original PLTRP remain unchanged. The requirements of the PLTRP apply to the owner or operator of any vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) tunas, swordfish, or shark permit under 50 CFR 635.4 and that has onboard pelagic longline gear as defined at 50 CFR 635.2 in the EEZ (as defined in 50 CFR 600.10).

The long-term goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate ( i.e., insignificance threshold or zero mortality rate goal), which is defined as 10 percent of the PBR level for a marine mammal stock (69 FR 43338, July 20, 2004).

Based on data from 2015 through 2019, PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of Risso's dolphins was 301 and average annual mortality and serious injury incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was 5.0 (Coefficient of Variation, or CV = 0.44; Hayes et al., 2022). Thus, the average annual mortality and serious injury incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is 1.7 percent of the stock's PBR level. Based on data from 2015 through 2019, PBR for the western North Atlantic stock of long-finned pilot whales was 306 and the average annual mortality and serious injury incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery was 1.5 long-finned pilot whales (CV = 0.49; Hayes et al., 2022). Thus, the average annual mortality and serious injury incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is 0.5 percent of the stock's PBR level.

For both Risso's dolphins and long-finned pilot whales, mortality and serious injury incidental to the pelagic longline fishery is currently below, and has been below, the insignificance threshold since the Plan's implementation. Therefore, NMFS is removing these stocks from the purpose and scope of the Plan.

This amendment removes the CHSRA, along with its special observer and research participation requirements, which includes a call-in requirement for vessels to provide at least 48 hours advance notice before fishing with pelagic longline gear in that area. NMFS created this regulation initially with the goal of encouraging partnerships between fishermen and researchers in that area. However, NMFS has not used the special observer and research participation requirements to place an observer on a vessel in the CHSRA since the regulations were implemented. Instead, researchers and fishermen have partnered independent of the regulations for research in that area. Therefore, NMFS is removing the CHSRA and associated requirements because it is not needed.

This amendment modifies the current 20 nmi (37.04 km) mainline length restrictions at 50 CFR 229.36(e) so that vessels in the EEZ portion of the MAB may set no more than one mainline in the water at any one time, not to exceed 32 nmi (59.26 km), subject to the following specifications: (1) there may be no more than 30 nmi (55.56 km) total of active gear (gear with leaders or hooks) deployed along the mainline, (2) a single section of active gear may not exceed 20 nmi (37.04 km), and (3) a section of active gear must be separated from other sections of active gear along the mainline by a gap without leaders or hooks ( i.e., hookless line “interrupt”) of at least 1 nmi (1.85 km).

This amendment also implements terminal gear requirements in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ as part of the PLTRP. The intent of the terminal gear requirements is to enable hooks to straighten before leaders break, because interactions with marine mammals are less likely to result in a serious injury when hooks straighten and whales can self-release after a hooking event. The terminal gear requirements include: (1) circle hooks must have a round wire diameter not to exceed 4.05 mm (0.159 in) if the hooks are size 16/0, or 4.40 mm (0.173 in) if the hooks are size 18/0, and must have a straightening force not to exceed 300 lb (136.08 kg), and (2) monofilament leaders and branch lines ( i.e., gangions) must have a minimum diameter of 1.8 mm (0.071 in) and a breaking strength of at least 300 lb (136.08 kg). These requirements would apply to the EEZ portions of the Northeast Coastal (NEC), MAB, South Atlantic Bight (SAB), and Florida East Coast (FEC) pelagic longline statistical areas, which together compose the entirety of the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (east of the line of demarcation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico as defined in 50 CFR 600.105(c)).

The non-regulatory components added to the PLTRP in this amendment include:

1. Convening a safe handling and release work group to develop potential updates to the current safe handling and release protocols for marine mammal interactions in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The work group would include PLTRT members, commercial fishermen, marine mammal health and disentanglement experts, and others with expertise and knowledge related to handling marine mammals and/or pelagic longline fishing practices.

2. Updating observer protocols and fishery observer data forms to increase information collected from marine mammal interaction and depredation events in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.

The current PLTRP Monitoring Strategy (NMFS, 2013) is a comprehensive plan that describes the methods for monitoring regulatory compliance and the effectiveness of the PLTRP. Compliance monitoring includes enforcement activities, research, collection of observer data, evaluation of self-reported fishing information, and education and outreach efforts. Effectiveness monitoring examines whether the long-term statutory goals described in the MMPA ( i.e., to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of short-finned pilot whales to a level approaching the stock's insignificance threshold) are being achieved.

NMFS intends to update the monitoring strategy to reflect the new regulatory and non-regulatory components of the PLTRP. In addition, although Risso's dolphins and long-finned pilot whales are being removed from the Plan, NMFS will continue to monitor their mortality and serious injury incidental to the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.

We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 15, 2020 (85 FR 81168) and requested comments and information from the public. During the 60-day comment period, we received 16 comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission), Oceana, a joint letter from Whale and Dolphin Conservation and Defenders of Wildlife (WDC and DOW), Blue Water Fishermen's Association (BWFA), Blue Water Fishing and Tackle Co., American Sword and Tuna Harvesters (ASTH) and five of their members, and 6 private citizens. Only comments relevant to the proposed rule were included below. All comments can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NMFS-2016-0105-0003/comment. Comment responses below are arranged in the following order: general comments, including whether it would be helpful to the regulated community to further clarify the statistical area definitions in the regulatory text in the final rule, comments on removing long-finned pilot whales and Risso's dolphin from the PLTRP, comments on removing the CHSRA, comments on changes to mainline length restrictions, and lastly, comments on implementing terminal gear regulations.

Comment 1: Five commenters (one member of the public, Blue Water Fishing Tackle Co., BWFA, Oceana, and the Commission) expressed general support for the entire proposed rule. Other commenters expressed their support for different aspects of the proposed rule. Two members of the public expressed support for removing Risso's dolphins and long-finned pilot whales from the PLTRP. One member of the public and BWFA expressed support for removing the CHSRA, while WDC and DOW stated that they did not oppose the removal of the CHSRA. Four members of the public and BWFA expressed support for both the mainline length and terminal gear requirements in the proposed rule. The Commission, WDC, and DOW expressed support for the terminal gear modifications and WDC and DOW stated that they did not oppose the mainline length restrictions. One member of the public and WDC and DOW expressed support for the non-regulatory recommendations in the proposed rule.

Response: We acknowledge and appreciate the support.

Comment 2: One member of the public acknowledged the trend of interactions has been declining, but suggested the regulatory and non-regulatory provisions in the proposed rule, particularly those related to terminal gear, do not go far enough and that additional provisions should be made to ensure that the Plan's long-term goal will be met in a timely manner.

Response: NMFS is amending the PLTRP in accordance with section 118(f) of the MMPA to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate ( i.e., insignificance threshold or zero mortality rate goal), which is defined as 10 percent of the PBR level for a marine mammal stock (69 FR 43338, July 20, 2004). We will continue monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations after implementation to ensure the long-term goals of the plan are being met and will address future changes to the regulations, in coordination with the PLTRT, if needed.

Comment 3: One member of the public urged NMFS to reconvene the PLTRT prior to finalizing the proposed rule to “receive its advice on additional or alternative measures submitted by agencies, groups, and individuals in response to this proposed action as well as any further changes NMFS may itself deem warranted.”

Response: NMFS convened the Team on February 10, 2021, during the public comment period of the proposed rule. The Key Outcomes Memo for this meeting can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/pelagic-longline-take-reduction-plan.

Comment 4: The ASTH stated their opposition to most of the proposals contained within the proposed rule, including removal of the CHSRA, mainline length restrictions, and terminal gear requirements.

Response: We acknowledge the opposition. The regulatory and non-regulatory measures in the rule are the result of deliberations and consensus recommendations by the multi-stakeholder PLTRT in accordance with section 118(f) of the MMPA. NMFS will be monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations after implementation to ensure the goals of the plan are being met and will address future changes to the regulations, in coordination with the PLTRT, if needed.

Comment 5: The Commission, WDC, and DOW were concerned about the delay in rulemaking between the PLTRT's consensus recommendations and the publication of the proposed rule. Furthermore, WDC and DOW questioned why the non-regulatory recommendations were not accomplished prior to the proposed rule.

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns. In this instance, the delays associated with this rule reflected the need to prioritize other legally-mandated, complex regulatory actions, including those associated with statutory and court-ordered deadlines, with limited available resources.

Comment 6: WDC and DOW recommended that NMFS report back to the Team on the outcome of the Safe Handling and Release Work Group and the effectiveness of any updated safe handling and release techniques. They also recommended that NMFS report back to the Team on the progress and effectiveness of the updated observer protocols.

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' recommendation and will update the PLTRT as appropriate.

Comment 7: WDC and DOW expressed concern about the suspension of mandatory observer coverage in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inquired about the Agency's plan to account for the loss of data and whether there was a process by which data can be accurately extrapolated for marine mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), accounting for COVID restrictions on observer data collection.

Response: In 2020, NMFS observers in the Pelagic Observer Program recorded 379 pelagic longline sets, which is an overall fishery coverage of 9 percent and in 2021, 415 pelagic longline sets were recorded, which is an overall fishery coverage of 9.7 percent. These coverage levels exceed the 8 percent observer coverage requirement under the May 2020 Biological Opinion for the pelagic longline fishery, suggesting that overall coverage was not impacted by the COVID restrictions. In the event that observer coverage for specific areas and quarters was impacted by the COVID restrictions, there are already methods in place that account for undersampling. For area-quarter strata that are not sampled or are poorly represented due to limited observer coverage, average bycatch rates from the prior 5 years of observations are used to estimate total bycatch. NMFS will evaluate the representativeness of observer data and take appropriate steps to reduce biases in bycatch estimation on an ongoing basis.

Comment 8: One member of the public commented that this proposed rule should have been the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) instead of an Environmental Assessment (EA).

Response: The commenter did not provide any specific supporting details for this comment. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, a Federal agency may prepare an EA to determine whether a Federal action has the potential to cause significant environmental effects. If the agency determines that the action will not have significant environmental impacts, the agency will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A FONSI is a document that presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts projected to occur upon implementation of the action. If the EA determines that the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action will be significant, an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. In the case of this rulemaking, our EA led to the conclusion that the action will not have significant environmental impacts and a FONSI was prepared and an EIS was not required. The commenter did not identify any specific deficiencies in the Agency's draft EA.

Comment 9: BWFA noted that the PBR and mortality and serious injury data presented in the proposed rule for short-finned pilot whales may not be the most recent available, as more recent data were presented at the PLTRT's September 18, 2020 meeting. They requested that the most recent data be used in the final rule.

Response: We considered the most recent final SAR for short-finned pilot whales in preparation of the final rule, but because the mortality and serious injury estimates not notably different from the mortality and serious injury estimates used in the proposed rule, and remained well over PBR, we did not update the EA. At the time that the proposed rule was drafted, the most recent data available was from the 2018 SAR (data years 2012-2016). Since then, the 2019 SAR (data years 2013-2017) and the 2021 SAR (data years 2015-2019) for short-finned pilot whales have become available. The mean annual mortality and serious injury incidental to the PLL fishery as noted in the proposed rule (2018 SAR) was 168, or 71 percent of PBR. In the 2019 SAR, the mean annual mortality and serious injury was 160, or 68 percent of PBR, and in the 2021 SAR the mean annual mortality and serious injury is 136, or 58 percent of PBR. As a result, the most recent SAR concludes that the total U.S. fishery-related mortality and serious injury attributed to short-finned pilot whales exceeds 10 percent of the calculated PBR and therefore cannot be considered insignificant and approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate; therefore, the long-term goal of the PLTRP is not being met.

Comment 10: WDC and DOW noted that they had no specific concerns about clarifying regional statistical area definitions in the regulatory text and encouraged industry input in the development of these clarifications. We did not receive other comments on this issue.

Response: We acknowledge and appreciate WDC and DOW's input. As further discussed below in the Changes from the Proposed Rule section, we assessed the proposed rule's regulatory text and determined that the same geographic areas can be more simply described and are therefore changing the text of the area descriptions to facilitate understanding of the rule's area of applicability. Specifically, for the areas other than the MAB, we assert referring to the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (east of the line of demarcation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico as defined in 50 CFR 600.105(c)) accurately and more clearly identifies the areas subject to the new terminal gear requirements.

Comment 11: One member of the ASTH commented that the rule would have significant impacts on their small business, but did not provide additional supporting information. They also expressed concerns about the process to coordinate our finding with the Small Business Administration (SBA) before making a final decision on this regulatory action.

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to clarify several issues raised in this comment. We certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not provide any comments on the proposed rule or on the adequacy of our assessment of impacts on small entities.

An estimated 88 pelagic longline vessels owned by 76 small businesses would be directly affected by this rule. They represent approximately 36 percent of the 248 permitted pelagic longline vessels and 214 small businesses in the pelagic longline fleet. Removing the CHSRA call-in requirement and requiring minimum gangion size and strength, combined, are expected to have little to no additional economic impacts. Modifying the mainline length requirements would cause a change in the amount of active gear deployed within the MAB ranging from a 0.7 percent decrease to a 4.8 percent increase. Assuming a constant one-to-one correspondence between the length of active gear and dockside revenue, there would be a corresponding change in dockside revenue from highly migratory species harvested from the MAB ranging from a 0.7 percent reduction to a 4.8 percent increase. When dockside revenues from highly migratory species harvested from all east coast fishing areas are included, the percentages of the net reduction or net gain decline significantly. Requiring particular hook strengths could slightly increase the annual hook cost of 88 pelagic longline vessels that fish on the east coast by $60 to $75 per vessel, which represents from 0.07 percent to 0.08 percent of annual trip costs.

No changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments and there were no significant changes to the fishery between the proposed and final rule. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

Comment 12: Two members of the public disagreed with removing Risso's dolphins or long-finned pilot whales from the PLTRP because their distribution overlaps with pelagic longline fishing and there is limited information available on the species' migration and movement patterns and insufficient information to reliably calculate abundance and, therefore, PBR.

Response: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns, and provide further clarification. Although the ranges of Risso's dolphins and long-finned pilot whales overlap with the fishery, observer data show that since the PLTRP was implemented, the mortality and serious injury of both species remains below 10 percent of PBR, thus meeting the long-term goal of the PLTRP in accordance with section 118(f) of the MMPA.

Comment 13: Two commenters requested that NMFS continue to monitor Risso's dolphin and long-finned pilot whale serious injury and mortality even though they will be removed from the Plan.

Response: We agree and will continue to closely monitor mortality and serious injury for these and other marine mammal species through our annual stock assessment and pelagic longline bycatch reports.

Comment 14: Three members of the public, the ASTH, and one ASTH member expressed opposition to removing the CHSRA, asking why NMFS would remove it if it is an important area for pilot whales and could impair future research.

Response: We acknowledge the concerns and appreciate the opportunity to clarify several issues raised in these comments. Removing the CHSRA will not impair future research opportunities. In order to deploy or fish with pelagic longline gear in the CHSRA, the regulations required fishermen to call NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center at least 48 hours, but no more than 96 hours, prior to embarking on the fishing trip to see if they must take a special observer to conduct scientific investigations in support of PLTRP implementation (50 CFR 229.36(d)). This requirement was in addition to any existing observer coverage requirements under the Pelagic Observer Program. However, NMFS has not used the special observer and research participation requirements to place an observer on a vessel in the CHSRA since the regulations were implemented. Instead, researchers and fishermen have voluntarily partnered independent of the regulations for research in that area. Because the CHSRA is not currently an area prohibited to fishing, the removal of the CHSRA's special observer and research participation requirements is not expected to impact bycatch rates of pilot whales, as no other restrictions on fishing activities are specifically associated with the area.

Comment 15: WDC and DOW commented on the importance of observer data throughout the fishery given the removal of the CHSRA.

Response: We agree that collecting observer data throughout the fishery is an important component in monitoring the effectiveness of the PLTRP. Because the CHSRA was a special requirement in addition to the overall monitoring of the fishery by the Pelagic Observer Program, removing the CHSRA is not expected to impact observer data or resulting bycatch estimates.

Comment 16: Three commenters had questions and/or concerns about standardization and enforcement of mainline length restrictions and the lack of clarity in the rule as to how these will be addressed. Additionally, two commenters noted the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of the mainline measure.

Response: NMFS will work closely with its Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and state enforcement agents to ensure effective enforcement of the regulations described in this final rule, including mainline length limitations. To protect the integrity and effectiveness of an enforcement plan, specific details concerning law enforcement tactics, techniques, and procedures will not be made public. Furthermore, NMFS will be updating the monitoring plan and will be evaluating the effectiveness of the new measures as data become available.

Comment 17: The ASTH and two of their members expressed opposition to the mainline requirement that prohibits setting multiple mainline sets, noting that multi-sets were a common practice and can decrease soak time.

Response: The 20 nmi (37.04 km) mainline length restriction in the EEZ portion of the MAB was originally developed because, at the time, data suggested that pilot whale interaction rates were twice as high in pelagic longline sets with total mainline lengths greater than 20 nmi (37.04 km) than for pelagic longline sets with total mainline lengths less than 20 nmi (37.04 km). Operators of individual fishing vessels were allowed to fish multiple mainline sets at one time to “compensate” for the reduction of hooks due to the reduced maximum mainline length of 20 nautical miles (PLTRT, 2006). Based on Team discussions, we presumed that less than 50 percent of fishing vessels in the MAB would set multiple mainlines to compensate for the reduced maximum mainline length. Beginning in 2013, however, fishing vessels in the MAB shifted from deploying mostly single mainline sets to also setting multiple mainlines in the water at one time (hereinafter referred to as “multi-sets”) (PLTRT, 2015). From 1992 to 2012, multiple mainlines set as part of a multi-set represented 1 percent of all mainlines observed on pelagic longline fishing vessels in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, but increased to 47 percent from 2013 to 2015 (PLTRT, 2015). Analyses showed that the rate of pilot whales interactions were higher in multi-sets compared to single mainline sets and that pelagic longline multi-sets had longer soak durations than a similar length single mainline set (PLTRT, 2015). In light of this information, the Team recommended that NMFS increase the maximum mainline length from 20 nmi (37.04 km) to 32 nmi (59.26 km) (with some restrictions), but limit vessels to a single mainline in the water at any one time to limit the total length of active gear in the water and reduce soak duration (PLTRT, 2016).

Comment 18: Several members of the ASTH commented on the impact this rule would have on vessels who are using a deep set longline technique, as this technique uses a longer mainline and more hooks to reach depth.

Response: The current regulations prohibit commercial vessels from deploying a pelagic mainline that exceeds 20 nmi (37.04 km) in length in the MAB (50 CFR 229.36(e)), unless authorized to do so for research purposes. This rule increases the maximum length of mainline in the MAB from 20 nmi (37.94 km) to 32 nmi (59.26 km). This rule applies to the owner or operator of any vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an Atlantic HMS tunas, swordfish, or shark permit under 50 CFR 635.4 and that has onboard pelagic longline gear as defined at 50 CFR 635.2 in the EEZ (as defined in 50 CFR 600.10). At this time, Atlantic pelagic longline vessels using the deep set fishing technique are considered to be part of the pelagic longline fishery and are, therefore, subject to this rule. If those vessels are considered active then they were considered in the economic analysis. However, because this fishing technique is relatively new in this fishery, there are limited data on how, when, and where this type of fishing occurs. As such, any data from vessels using this technique were treated the same as data from a standard pelagic longline vessel for the mainline length analysis. We will update the Team as new information on this fishing technique becomes available.

Comment 19: The ASTH and two of their members commented how the analysis of the economic impacts does not take into account the adverse impact on vessels and small businesses that are presently deploying more than 32 nmi (59.26 km) of mainline, such as those deploying mainline that is 45 or 50 nmi in length.

Response: The regulations prohibit commercial vessels from deploying a pelagic mainline that exceeds 20 nmi (37.04 km) in length in the MAB (50 CFR 229.36(e)), unless authorized to do so for research purposes. This rule increases the maximum length of mainline in the MAB from 20 nmi (37.94 km) to 32 nmi (59.26 km), and is, therefore, expected to generate an economic benefit. We did not analyze the economic impacts of vessels fishing in the MAB deploying more than 20 nmi of mainline length along a single mainline because it exceeds the legal limit.

Mainline lengths are not currently regulated outside of the MAB, and this rule does not change that. Vessels fishing longer mainlines, such as 45 or 50 nmi, outside the MAB may continue to do so and experience no economic impacts. As a result, no changes to the economic analysis were made in response to public comments and there were no significant changes to the fishery requiring modifications to the economic analysis.

Comment 20: In the proposed rule, NMFS sought comments on the length of time necessary to implement the terminal gear regulations. Three commenters addressed the length of time needed for manufacturers and industry to implement the new terminal gear requirements. WDC and DOW noted that manufacturers may need time to produce new hooks, but were concerned about additional delays to implementing regulations. BWFA and Blue Water Fishing and Tackle Co. suggested that at least 1 full year would be needed to plan and implement the hook design and inventory changes that would be needed, but recommended that the fishery be given no less than 18 months following the publication of the final rule to implement the new hook requirements in order to work through existing inventories of hooks that would not meet the new regulatory requirements.

Response: We acknowledge these comments and to meet the competing conservation needs for the species and economic needs of the pelagic longline industry, we are delaying implementation of the new terminal gear requirements for 1 year from the effective date of the final rule.

Comment 21: In the proposed rule, NMFS sought comments on whether the proposed strength for gangions is sufficient for ensuring that the proposed hooks will straighten before the gangion breaks. BWFA and Blue Water Fishing and Tackle Co. provided information in support of the proposed strengths and noted that the test of a leader is generally a minimum strength, which means a 300 lb (136.08 kg) leader would likely require more than 300 lb before breaking, and that the leaders are changed out regularly to avoid having them degrade and weaken over time through use. In contrast, the Commission, Oceana, and one member of the public provided comments indicating that the proposed breaking strengths would be insufficient.

Response: We acknowledge and appreciate the information provided by the commenters. Based on these comments, we did not change the proposed strength for gangions ( i.e., leaders or branch lines) or hooks. Additionally, we will update the monitoring plan and evaluate the effectiveness of the new terminal gear requirements as data become available.

Comment 22: The Commission commented that it does not support the use of 18/0 hooks and recommended that “NMFS select and implement the `hooks' sub-action of alternative 3” and strike 18/0 from the regulatory text.

Response: We acknowledge the Commission's comment. When the PLTRT developed this consensus recommendation in 2015, discussion focused on hook types, with Team members drawing on a combination of NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center analysis, weak hook study (C. Bergmann) and hook testing (McLellan et al., 2014 and McLellan unpublished data) to identify hooks more likely to straighten under the force of a hooked pilot whale, which included 18/0 circle hooks with a 4.40 mm (0.173 in) wire diameter (PLTRT, 2015). Once the terminal gear requirements go into effect, we will monitor the use of such gear to determine whether there is any difference between the marine mammal bycatch on 16/0 and 18/0 hooks and reevaluate in the future with the Team, as needed.

Comment 23: Oceana, WDC, DOW, and one member of the public commented on the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of the terminal gear requirements, including collecting and analyzing data on straightened hooks, bare leaders, and updating the observer information collected. Additionally, a member of the public encouraged NMFS to have fishery observers collect straightened hooks in order to try to genetically identify the species involved in the straightening.

Response: NMFS agrees with the importance of monitoring the effectiveness of these requirements. We will update the monitoring plan and evaluate the effectiveness of the new measures as data becomes available. Additionally, one of the non-regulatory components of the Plan is to update observer protocols and fishery observer forms to increase information collected from marine mammal interaction and depredation events in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.

Comment 24: Several members of the ASTH expressed opposition to the terminal gear requirements because they think they will lose target catch and commented that the adverse economic impact would be similar to the adverse economic impact of the weak-hook requirement in the Gulf of Mexico.

Response: The weak hooks required by this final rule in the Atlantic EEZ are not the same as those required in the Gulf of Mexico. The hooks required by this final rule are stronger than the ones required in the Gulf of Mexico and are currently used by pelagic longline fishermen in the area. Additionally, NMFS will update the monitoring plan and will evaluate the effectiveness of the new terminal requirements as data become available.

In the proposed rule, NMFS solicited comments on several items: (1) whether the proposed strength for gangions is sufficient for ensuring that the proposed hooks will straighten before the gangion breaks, (2) the length of time necessary for hook manufacturers to produce and supply hooks that meet the new specifications as well as the length of time the industry would need to implement the use of hooks and gangions that meet new specifications in the fishery and (3) the clarity of the manner in which four fishing areas (Northeast Coast, Mid-Atlantic Bight, South Atlantic Bight, and Florida East Coast) are defined, as well as the consistency of the definitions. As described below, as a result of the comments received on the third question, NMFS is making changes to the proposed rule. Additionally, as a result of comments received on the second question, NMFS is delaying implementation of the terminal gear requirements. NMFS is not making other changes as a result of the public comments summarized earlier but has made clarifying changes as needed throughout the regulatory text.

NMFS requested comments regarding whether the proposed strength for gangions (at least 300 lb (136.08 kg), based on manufacturer specifications when new) is sufficient for ensuring that the proposed hooks (with a straightening force not to exceed 300 lb based on manufacturer's specifications when new and a diameter not to exceed 4.05 mm (0.159 in) for size 16/0 hooks or 4.40 mm (0.173 in) for size 18/0 hooks) will straighten before the gangion ( i.e., leaders or branch lines) breaks, thereby allowing a short-finned pilot whale to self-release. We received comments from industry indicating that (a) the test of a gangion is generally a minimum strength, which means a 300 lb leader would likely require more than 300 lbs before breaking, and (b) the leaders are changed out regularly, and therefore are unlikely to degrade and weaken over time through use. Based on these comments, NMFS did not change the terminal gear requirements from the proposed rule. However, in line with comments from stakeholders, NMFS will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this requirement and reassess with the Team at a future meeting.

NMFS requested comments concerning the length of time necessary for hook manufacturers to produce and supply hooks that meet the new specifications as well as the length of time the industry would need to implement the use of hooks and gangions that meet new specifications in the fishery.

Based on comments received from industry that they would need at least 12 months to comply with the new specifications, NMFS delayed implementation of the terminal gear requirements by 1 year, commencing 30 days after the date of publication of this rule, in effect allowing 13 months for production and supply of hooks that meet the final rule specifications. NMFS also notes that there are available hooks that meet the specifications of the final rule currently used by the fleet. In line with comments from industry stakeholders, NMFS will monitor for any supply chain issues associated with this requirement during the delayed implementation period.

The proposed rule defined three new fishing areas (NEC, SAB and FEC), in addition to the MAB, in order to identify where the terminal gear requirements would apply. NMFS requested comments regarding the clarity of the manner in which the areas are defined, as well as the consistency of the definitions.

To simplify the regulations, NMFS is changing the manner in which it describes where the terminal gear requirements apply, though the geographic scope of these requirements is unchanged. The proposed rule defined three new areas that are widely known to the pelagic longline fishery because they are statistical reporting areas depicted on maps, but are not currently defined in regulations. The NEC, SAB and FEC areas, along with the MAB area, are equivalent to the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (east of the line of demarcation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico as defined in 50 CFR 600.105(c)). Therefore, NMFS is clarifying the regulatory text for enforcement purposes that the terminal gear requirements apply to the entire U.S. Atlantic EEZ (east of the line of demarcation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico as defined in 50 CFR 600.105(c)) and is removing the proposed definitions for the NEC, SAB, FEC areas from the final rule.

Furthermore, for enforcement purposes, NMFS is clarifying the definition of the MAB (where the mainline length restrictions apply) by using specific references to the latitude and longitude coordinates to identify the area. NMFS is not changing the geographic scope of the MAB area.

An Environmental Assessment has been prepared, analyzing the impacts on the human environment that would result from this action and determining that the action will not have significant environmental impacts upon implementation of the action. A copy of the EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

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

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule. While NMFS received several public comments on the economic effects of weak hooks and mainline length requirements, no changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments and there were no significant changes to the fishery between the proposed and final rule. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

A complete list of all references cited in this final rule, along with other supporting documents can be found in the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0105 and is available upon request from the NMFS Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, FL (see ADDRESSES ).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is amended as follows:

On April 11, 2023, NMFS published a final rule approving changes to the Pacific halibut Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan and implementing recreational (sport) management measures for 2023 (88 FR 21503), as authorized by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773-773(k)). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 2023 Catch Sharing Plan provides a recommended framework for NMFS' annual management measures and subarea allocations based on the 2023 Area 2A Pacific halibut catch limit of 1,520,000 pounds (lb) (689 metric tons (mt)) set by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The Area 2A catch limit and commercial fishery allocations were adopted by the IPHC and were published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2023 (88 FR 14066) after acceptance by the Secretary of State, with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.62. The Area 2A Pacific halibut management measures include recreational fishery season dates, bag limits, and subarea allocations.

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6), “Inseason Management for Recreational (Sport) Halibut Fisheries in Area 2A.,” allow the NMFS Regional Administrator to modify annual regulations during the season. These inseason provisions allow the Regional Administrator to modify recreational (sport) fishing periods, bag limits, size limits, days per calendar week, and subarea quotas, if it is determined it is necessary to meet the allocation objectives and the action will not result in exceeding the catch limit.

NMFS has determined that, due to lower than expected landings in the Central Oregon Coast and Southern Oregon subareas, the Washington North Coast subarea, and the Columbia River subarea, inseason action to modify the 2023 annual regulations for the recreational fishery is warranted at this time to provide additional opportunity for fishery participants to achieve the Area 2A subarea allocations. As stated above, inseason modification of fishing season dates and bag limits is authorized by Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6). After consulting with the IPHC, the Council, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), NMFS determined the following inseason actions are necessary to meet the management objective of attaining subarea allocations, will not result in exceeding any subarea allocations, and are consistent with the inseason management provisions allowing for the modification of recreational fishing periods, recreational fishing days per calendar week, and fishing bag limits. Notice of these additional dates and increased bag limits will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

Description of the action: This inseason action implements an increase in the bag limit from one fish per day, to two fish per day in the Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subareas for the remainder of the 2023 recreational fishery.

Reason for the action: The purpose of this inseason action is to provide additional opportunity for anglers in the Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subareas. The recreational fishery in these subareas opened on May 1, 2023. NMFS has determined an increased bag limit is warranted due to lower than expected landings through May 19, 2023, and the expectation that a substantial amount of the Oregon combined allocation will go unharvested without increased bag limits. As of May 13, anglers in the Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subareas have harvested 27,837 lb (12.63 mt) of the 293,436 lb (133.10 mt) allocation (9 percent), leaving 265,599 lb (120.47 mt) remaining (91 percent of the subarea allocation). Without the increased bag limits in this action, the bag limits implemented in the April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21503, April 11, 2023) final rule would likely result in substantial unharvested allocation in the combined Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subareas. The Catch Sharing Plan stipulates that “if the Central Oregon Coast Subarea allocation (all-depth and nearshore combined) is 200,000 pounds or greater, the daily bag limit may be increased to two fish per day, based on consultation between ODFW, NMFS, IPHC, and PFMC with the intent of taking the entire subarea allocation by September 30.” The Catch Sharing Plan also specifies that when the bag limit for the Oregon Central Coast subarea is increased from one to two fish, the bag limit for the Southern Oregon subarea is also increased.

After consulting with ODFW, it was determined that in order for anglers to have the opportunity to achieve the combined Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subarea allocations, with little risk of the subareas or coastwide allocation being exceeded, increased bag limits are warranted for participants in these two Oregon subareas. Therefore, through this action, NMFS is announcing higher bag limits than those previously implemented in the final rule on April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21503, April 11, 2023). Specifically, the bag limits are increased for the Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subareas from one fish to two fish per day.

Notice of these increased bag limits will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

Description of the action: This inseason action implements seven additional fishing dates for the Washington North Coast subarea during the 2023 recreational fishery.

Reason for the action: The purpose of this inseason action is to provide additional opportunity for anglers in the Washington North Coast subarea by opening the fishery on June 9, 11, 16, 18, 23, 25, and 30. The recreational fishery in this subarea opened on May 4, 2023. NMFS has determined that these additional dates are warranted due to lower than expected landings through May 19, 2023, and the expectation that a substantial amount of subarea allocation will go unharvested without additional fishing dates. Fishing dates were set with the expectation that effort would return to pre-pandemic levels and with the intention of attaining most of the allocation before the end of June, with some allocation left for late summer opportunity. However, effort has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, likely due to high fuel prices and the resulting high cost of driving to remote port locations in the North Coast subarea as well as high vessel fuel prices, as well as reports of lower catch per unit effort (CPUE) and smaller halibut. As of May 14, anglers in the Washington North Coast subarea have harvested 15,217 lb (6.90 mt) of the 129,668 lb (58.82 mt) allocation (12 percent), leaving 114,451 lb (51.92 mt) remaining (88 percent of the subarea allocation). Without the additional dates in this action, the dates implemented in the final rule on April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21503, April 11, 2023) would likely result in substantial unharvested allocation in the Washington North Coast subarea.

After consulting with WDFW, it was determined that in order for anglers to have the opportunity to achieve Washington recreational allocation, with little risk of subarea or coastwide allocations being exceeded, additional season dates are warranted for participants in the Washington North Coast subareas. Therefore, through this action, NMFS is announcing additional season dates in June that were not previously implemented in the final rule on April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21503, April 11, 2023). Specifically, the additional season dates for the Washington North Coast subarea are June 9, 11, 16, 18, 23, 25, and 30.

Notice of these additional dates will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

Description of the action: This inseason action implements two additional fishing dates for the Columbia River subarea during the 2023 recreational fishery.

Reason for the action: The purpose of this inseason action is to provide additional opportunity for anglers in the Columbia River subarea by opening the fishery on June 13 and 20. The recreational fishery in this subarea opened on May 4, 2023. NMFS has determined that these additional dates are warranted due to lower than expected landings through May 19, 2023. Fishing dates were set with the expectation that effort would return to pre-pandemic levels and with the intention of reaching the allocation before the end of June. However, effort has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, likely due to high vessel fuel prices, as well as reports of lower CPUE and smaller halibut. As of May 14, anglers in the Columbia River subarea have harvested 4,791 lb (2.17 mt) of the 18,875 lb (8.56 mt) allocation (25 percent), leaving 13,700 lb (6.21 mt) remaining (75 percent of the subarea allocation). Without the additional dates in this action, the dates implemented in the April 11, 2023 (88 FR 21503, April 11, 2023) final rule would likely result in unharvested allocation in the Columbia River subarea.

After consulting with WDFW and ODFW, it was determined that in order for anglers to have the opportunity to achieve Columbia River recreational allocation by the end of June, with little risk of subarea or coastwide allocations being exceeded, additional season dates are warranted for participants in the Columbia River subareas. Therefore, through this action NMFS is announcing new season dates in June that were not previously implemented in the April 11, 2023, final rule (88 FR 21503, April 11, 2023). Specifically, the additional season dates for the Columbia River subarea are June 13 and 20.

Notice of these additional dates will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

Weekly catch monitoring reports for the recreational fisheries in Washington, Oregon, and California are available on their respective state Fish and Wildlife agency websites. NMFS and the IPHC will continue to monitor recreational catch obtained via state sampling procedures until NMFS has determined there is not sufficient allocation for another full day of fishing, and the area is closed by the IPHC, or the season closes on September 30 in Washington and the Columbia River subarea or October 31 in Oregon, whichever is earlier.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(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. ODFW and WDFW provided updated landings data to NMFS on May 19, 2023, showing that the fishery participants in the recreational fishery off of Oregon had caught only 9 percent of Central Coast and Southern subarea combined allocations, fishery participants in the recreational fishery off of Washington had caught only 12 percent of the North Coast subarea allocation, and fishery participants in the Columbia River subarea had caught only 25 percent of the subarea allocation. NMFS uses fishing rates from previous years to determine the number of recreational fishing dates needed to attain subarea allocations. Given the lower than expected catch rates in the Oregon Central Coast and the Southern Oregon subareas, the Washington North Coast subarea, and the Columbia River subarea, increased bag limits in the Oregon Central Coast and Southern Oregon subareas, and additional dates in the Washington North Coast subarea and the Columbia River subarea are considered necessary to increase angler opportunity to reach the overall Oregon and Washington subarea allocations. This action should be implemented as soon as possible to allow fishery participants to take advantage of the increased bag limits in the Oregon subareas prior to the end of the season and to plan for additional season dates in the Washington and Columbia River subareas. As the fisheries close on October 31, 2023 in Oregon and on September 30, 2023 in Washington and the Columbia River subareas, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action would provide to fishery participants. Without implementation of increased bag limits in Oregon and additional season dates in Washington and the Columbia River subarea, the overall Oregon and Washington allocations are unlikely to be harvested, limiting economic benefits to the participants and not meeting the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. It is necessary that this rulemaking be implemented in a timely manner so that planning for increased bag limits and additional season dates can take place, and for business and personal decision making by the regulated public impacted by this action, which includes recreational charter fishing operations, associated port businesses, and private anglers who do not live near the coastal access points for this fishery, among others. To ensure the regulated public is fully aware of this action, notice of this regulatory action will also be provided to anglers through a telephone hotline, news release, and by the relevant state fish and wildlife agencies. NMFS will receive public comments for 15 days after publication of this action, in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(c)(6)(iv). No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(c).

For the reasons discussed above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date and make this action effective immediately upon filing for public inspection, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would constrain fishing opportunity and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan, as well as potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. This inseason action is not expected to result in exceeding the allocation for these subareas. NMFS regulations allow the Regional Administrator to modify sport fishing periods, bag limits, size limits, days per calendar week, and subarea allocations, provided that the action allows allocation objectives to be met and will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the subarea. NMFS recently received information on the progress of landings in the recreational fisheries in Oregon and Washington subareas, indicating an increase in bag limits for Oregon and additional season dates for Washington should be implemented in the fishery to ensure optimal and sustainable harvest of the subarea allocations. As stated above, it is in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of these new dates would not allow the allocation objectives of the recreational Pacific halibut fishery to be met.