I. Background A. The Visa Waiver Program

Pursuant to section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), 1 in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate certain countries for participation in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) if certain requirements are met. Those requirements include, among others:

The INA also sets forth requirements for countries' continued VWP eligibility and, where appropriate, probation, suspension, or termination of program countries. See INA section 217(c)-(f), 8 U.S.C. 1187(c)-(f).

Citizens and nationals of VWP countries may apply for admission to the United States at U.S. ports of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure for a period of ninety days or less without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided they are otherwise eligible for admission under applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. To travel to the United States under the VWP, a noncitizen must, without limitation:

Hungary was designated for participation in the VWP on November 17, 2008. See 73 FR 67711.

Typically, pursuant to DHS regulations, a travel authorization issued under ESTA is valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance. See 8 CFR 217.5(d)(1). However, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may decrease the ESTA travel authorization validity period for a designated VWP country. See 8 CFR 217.5(d)(3). 2 DHS publishes notice of any changes to ESTA travel authorization validity periods in the Federal Register . See 8 CFR 217.5(d)(3).

DHS conducts the statutorily required review of each VWP country at least once every two years to evaluate the effects that continuing the country's designation in the program will have on U.S. national security, law enforcement, and immigration enforcement interests. See INA section 217(c)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1187(c)(5)(A).

In April 2017, DHS learned that individuals had fraudulently procured legitimate Hungarian passports by falsely assuming the identities of citizens who naturalized through a “simplified process.” This simplified naturalization process, created in 2011, extends citizenship to ethnic Hungarians living outside Hungary and waives the standard naturalization requirement for an applicant to be a Hungarian resident for five years. This simplified process also eliminated identity management protocols that are conditions of the Government of Hungary's standard naturalization procedure, including the collection of fingerprints and a facial image of the applicant. Without complete biometric data, including an image of the recently-naturalized citizen from the simplified naturalization process, the Government of Hungary's passport application process became susceptible to imposter fraud. Additionally, the Government of Hungary identified corrupt officials who sold Hungarian passports.

In October 2017, the Secretary notified the Government of Hungary by letter that it had been placed on provisional VWP status (pursuant to which Hungary is subject to an annual assessment, rather than an assessment every two years) due to its noncooperation with earlier U.S. Government requests for information and collaboration in the investigation of passport fraud. The letter outlined steps necessary for Hungary to return to normalized status as a participating country in the VWP.

Despite engagement by U.S. ambassadors and DHS up to the Secretary level since 2017, the Government of Hungary has made only limited progress in addressing vulnerabilities created by its “simplified” naturalization process. Its failure to address the large volume of identities that continue to be at risk of being exploited for mala fide purposes and its lack of investigative cooperation with U.S. law enforcement presents an elevated level of risk to the national security, law enforcement, and immigration enforcement interests of the United States.

DHS is publishing this document announcing that effective August 1, 2023, DHS is decreasing Hungary's ESTA validity period for travel to the United States from two years from the date of issuance to one year and limiting the validity of an ESTA for citizens or nationals of Hungary to a single use for ESTA applications received after the effective date of this document. This will have the dual effect of (1) sending a public signal regarding Hungary's non-compliance with VWP requirements, and (2) in the case of those with regular travel to the United States, creating an opportunity to obtain updated application and travel history information of Hungarian VWP travelers for vetting purposes. This is necessary due to Hungary's inability to fully satisfy its obligations under the VWP. Should Hungary's non-compliance with VWP requirements continue, DHS, in consultation with State, may make further adjustments to Hungary's VWP designation at any time, including suspension or termination from the program.

The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to review and determination of the Board.

On July 26, 2023, the Board voted to approve a 0.25 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate, thereby increasing the primary credit rate from 5.25 percent to 5.5 percent. In addition, the Board had previously approved the renewal of the secondary credit rate formula, the primary credit rate plus 50 basis points. Under the formula, the secondary credit rate increased by 0.25 percentage points as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action, thereby increasing the secondary credit rate from 5.75 percent to 6.0 percent. The amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

The 0.25 percentage point increase in the primary credit rate was associated with 0.25 percentage point increase in the target range for the Federal funds rate (from a target range of 5 percent to 5 1/4 percent to a target range of 5 1/4 percent to 5 1/2 percent) announced by the Federal Open Market Committee on July 26, 2023, as described in the Board's amendment of its Regulation D published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)  1 imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to Congressionally-delegated authority): (1) publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.”  2 Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication at least 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) a rule for which the agency finds good cause for shortened notice and publishes its reasoning with the rule. 3 The APA further provides that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.”  4

Regulation A establishes the interest rates that the twelve Reserve Banks charge for extensions of primary credit and secondary credit. The Board has determined that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA do not apply to these final amendments to Regulation A. The amendments involve a matter relating to loans and are therefore exempt under the terms of the APA. Furthermore, because delay would undermine the Board's action in responding to economic data and conditions, the Board has determined that “good cause” exists within the meaning of the APA to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to the final amendments to Regulation A.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 5 As noted previously, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required if the final rule involves a matter relating to loans. Furthermore, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995, 6 the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR chapter II as follows:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. 1 Regulation D, which implements section 19 of the Act, requires that a depository institution meet reserve requirements by holding cash in its vault, or if vault cash is insufficient, by maintaining a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”). 2 Section 19 also provides that balances maintained by or on behalf of certain institutions in an account at a Reserve Bank may receive earnings to be paid by the Reserve Bank at least once each quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. 3 Institutions that are eligible to receive earnings on their balances held at Reserve Banks (“eligible institutions”) include depository institutions and certain other institutions. 4 Section 19 also provides that the Board may prescribe regulations concerning the payment of earnings on balances at a Reserve Bank. 5 Prior to these amendments, Regulation D established IORB at 5.15 percent. 6

The Board is amending § 204.10(b)(1) of Regulation D to establish IORB at 5.4 percent. The amendment represents a 0.25 percentage point increase in IORB. This decision was announced on July 26, 2023, with an effective date of July 27, 2023, in the Federal Reserve Implementation Note that accompanied the FOMC's statement on July 26, 2023. The FOMC statement stated that the Committee decided to raise the target range for the Federal funds rate to 5 1/4 to 5 1/2 percent.

The Federal Reserve Implementation Note stated:

As a result, the Board is amending § 204.10(b)(1) of Regulation D to establish IORB at 5.4 percent.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)  7 imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to Congressionally-delegated authority): (1) publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.”  8 Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication at least 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) a rule for which the agency finds good cause for shortened notice and publishes its reasoning with the rule. 9

The Board has determined that good cause exists for finding that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date provisions of the APA are unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest with respect to these final amendments to Regulation D. The rate change for IORB that is reflected in the final amendment to Regulation D was made with a view towards accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country. Notice and public comment would prevent the Board's action from being effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest and would not otherwise serve any useful purpose. Notice, public comment, and a delayed effective date would create uncertainty about the finality and effectiveness of the Board's action and undermine the effectiveness of that action. Accordingly, the Board has determined that good cause exists to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to this final amendment to Regulation D.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 10 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995, 11 the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 204 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 The Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 747-8F and 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2023 (88 FR 29555). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating the presence of cracks in stringers, common to the end fittings, at stringer location S-42L/R and S-46L/R on the aft side of the bulkhead at station 2598. The airplane had accumulated 5,517 total flight cycles and 32,468 total flight hours at time the cracks were found. In addition, during foreign object debris (FOD) inspections Boeing found five cracks in stringers, common to the end fittings, at stringer locations S-2L, S-6L, S-8L, and S-2R on the forward side and S-5L on the aft side of the bulkhead at STA 2598 on two airplanes. The FAA has also received reports of similar cracks found on additional airplanes. In all cases, the cracks were found in the side walls of the stringers and had grown in longitudinal and transverse directions, but there was no other damage or deformation in the surrounding area. An investigation by Boeing found that during airplane assembly, un-shimmed or incorrectly shimmed gaps that were larger than engineering requirements caused excessive and sustained internal tensile stresses and resulted in stress corrosion cracking in the stringers. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require detailed inspections of the stringers, common to the end fittings, forward and aft of the bulkhead at a certain station for cracking and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address stress corrosion cracking in the stringers. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to a failure of the skin adjacent to the bulkhead at STA 2598, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA received a comment from Boeing, who supported the NPRM without change.

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 these products. 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 Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-53A2911 RB, dated November 3, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the stringers, common to the end fittings, forward and aft of the bulkhead at STA 2598, for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include repair. 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 42 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 repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2022-0216 in the Federal Register (88 FR 45329; July 17, 2023), that amended RNAV route T-230 in the vicinity of St. Paul Island, AK. The effective date in the final rule was incorrectly stated as August 10, 2023. The correct effective date for Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-63 is October 5, 2023.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective date of the final rule, Airspace Docket 19-AAL-63, as published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2023 (88 FR 45329), FR Doc. 2023-15011, is hereby delayed until October 5, 2023.

NASA published a document in the Federal Register on July 5, 2023 [88 FR 42870], in FR Doc. 2023-14042, concerning Delegations and Designations. The Agency is withdrawing the document to allow for additional internal coordination.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port 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 impracticable. A safety zone is needed to alleviate safety concerns associated with construction operations for the purpose of adding the center section of the Donald Legg Memorial Bridge. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 24th, 2023, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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 we must establish the safety zone by August 24, 2023 in order to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge construction beginning on that date.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that safety needs associated with construction operations on the Donald Legg Memorial Bridge on August 23, 2023, and August 24, 2023, present a safety concern. The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of the public surrounding regulated area before, during, and after the construction event.

This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 5:30 a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 24, 2023, and from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. on August 25, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile markers 41.5 to 42.5 on the Kanawha River. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the bridge span is being added. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 1-502-779-5424. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts 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 section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. This rule is limited to the Kanawha River from mile 41.5 to 42.5 on August 23, 2023, and August 24, 2023, and will be enforced only during the times specified. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

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).

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 establishing a temporary safety zone on the Kanawha River at mile 41.5 to 42.5 on August 23, 2023, and August 24, 2023. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) 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. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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:

Purpose: As noted above, this final rule incorporates classification changes adopted by the Nice Agreement that will become effective on January 1, 2024. Specifically, this rule modifies the class heading for Class 3 to align the English class heading with the French class heading.

Summary of Major Provisions: The USPTO is revising § 6.1 of 37 CFR part 6 to incorporate classification changes and modifications, as listed in the Nice Classification (12th ed., ver. 2024), published by WIPO, that will become effective on January 1, 2024.

The Nice Agreement is a multilateral treaty, administered by WIPO, that establishes the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of registering trademarks and service marks. As of September 1, 1973, this international classification system is the controlling system used by the United States, and it applies, for all statutory purposes, to all applications filed on or after September 1, 1973, and their resulting registrations. See 37 CFR 2.85(a). Every signatory to the Nice Agreement must use the international classification system.

Each state party to the Nice Agreement is represented in the Committee of Experts of the Nice Union (Committee of Experts), which meets annually to vote on proposed changes to the Nice Classification. Any state that is a party to the Nice Agreement may submit proposals for consideration by the other members of the Committee of Experts, in accordance with agreed-upon rules of procedure. Proposals are currently submitted annually to an electronic forum on the WIPO website, where they are commented on, modified, and compiled for further discussion and voting at the annual Committee of Experts meeting.

In 2013, the Committee of Experts began annual revisions to the Nice Classification. The annual revisions, which are published electronically and enter into force on January 1 each year, are referred to as versions and identified by an edition number and the year of the effective date ( e.g., “Nice Classification, 10th ed., ver. 2013” or “NCL 10-2013”). Each annual version includes all changes adopted by the Committee of Experts since the adoption of the previous version. The changes consist of: (1) the addition of new goods and services to, and the deletion of goods and services from, the Alphabetical List; and (2) any modifications to the wording in the Alphabetical List, the class headings, or the explanatory notes that do not involve the transfer of goods or services from one class to another.

As of January 1, 2023, new editions of the Nice Classification are published electronically every three years. They include all changes adopted since the previous annual version, as well as goods or services transferred from one class to another and new classes that have been created since the previous edition.

The 33rd session of the Committee of Experts, which took place from May 1-5, 2023, was held in a hybrid format, with WIPO participating at the WIPO headquarters in Geneva and member states participating via an online platform or in person. The annual revisions contained in this final rule consist of a modification to a class heading that was incorporated into the Nice Agreement through e-voting during the session.

Under the Nice Classification, there are 34 classes of goods and 11 classes of services, each with a class heading. Class headings generally indicate the fields to which goods and services belong. Specifically, this rule modifies the class heading for Class 3 by deleting the term “scouring” from the phrase “cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations” and modifying the punctuation, as set forth in the discussion of regulatory changes below. This change was made to align the English class heading with the French class heading. The term “scouring” does not appear in the French version. Moreover, the remaining wording, “abrasive preparations,” encompasses “scouring preparations.” As a signatory to the Nice Agreement, the United States adopts these revisions pursuant to article 1.

The USPTO is revising § 6.1 as follows:

In Class 3, the wording and punctuation “cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations” is replaced with “cleaning, polishing and abrasive preparations.”

A. Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97 (2015) (interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 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).

Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 575 U.S. at 101 (notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule”); 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)).

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 Act 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. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). Specifically, the USPTO has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across Government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).

K. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this rulemaking are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this rulemaking is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

M. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995: The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.

O. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: This final rule does not involve information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

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

P. E-Government Act Compliance: The USPTO is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1112 and 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the USPTO is amending 37 CFR part 6 as follows:

I. Background

CAA section 182(b)(2) requires states to revise their SIPs to include provisions implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of volatile organic compound (VOC) sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)  1 document in ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate or above. CAA Section 182(b)(2)(B) specifically requires states to include VOC RACT measures in their SIPs if the area is covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990. In 1975, EPA established a CTG addressing the control of VOC emissions from gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs). 2 For certain GDFs, owners or operators are required to install systems for the recovery of gasoline vapor emissions. These requirements are also known as Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery.

Stage I vapor recovery requires the control of hydrocarbon gasoline vapors, such as VOCs, when dispensing gasoline from tanker trucks into gasoline storage tanks. Specifically, Stage I vapor recovery systems capture vapors displaced from storage tanks at GDFs during gasoline cargo truck deliveries. When gasoline is delivered into an above ground or underground storage tank, vapors that were taking up space in the storage tank are displaced by the gasoline entering the storage tank. The Stage I vapor recovery systems route these displaced vapors into the tank of the delivery truck. Some vapors are vented when the storage tank exceeds a specified pressure threshold, however, the Stage I vapor recovery systems greatly reduce the possibility of these displaced vapors being released into the atmosphere.

Georgia's Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Rule, found at 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr), applies to GDFs located in Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Catoosa, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Richmond, Rockdale, Spalding, Walker, and Walton Counties. Georgia's November 4, 2021, submittal includes changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr), “Gasoline Dispensing Facility—Stage I.”  3 The revision primarily contains non-substantive changes such as language edits, removing outdated references, and clarifying edits. The revision also updates several definitions and makes two substantive changes.

Specifically, the State makes several changes to clarify the physical nature of gasoline vapor recovery control systems and clarifies a provision that outlines one method to control vapors displaced from gasoline stationary storage tanks during filling. In addition to changes addressing the physical nature of the control technology, the State has made other edits to clarify various certification and recertification testing requirements, and also the rule's recordkeeping requirements. Further, Georgia has made changes to specify the required vapor efficiency to qualify as a “Stage 1 Gasoline Vapor Recovery System” or an “Enhanced Stage I Gasoline Vapor Recovery System”, including updated definitions and a clarification that functional testing is not conducted by Georgia EPD.

EPA is approving this SIP revision because the rule changes are not expected to result in any change to air pollutant emissions and therefore would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement. In addition, these changes are consistent with all applicable federal requirements for Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), published on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38430), EPA proposed to approve the November 4, 2021, changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr). The details of Georgia's submission, as well as EPA's rationale for approving the changes, are described in more detail in the June 13, 2023, NPRM. Comments on the June 13, 2023, NPRM were due on or before July 13, 2023. No comments were received on the June 13, 2023, NPRM, adverse or otherwise.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Section I of this preamble, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr), “Gasoline Dispensing Facility—Stage I,” state effective on October 25, 2021, with the exception of the changes to subparagraph 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr)16.(x). 4 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 5

In accordance with section 110 of the CAA, EPA is finalizing the approval of the aforementioned changes to the Georgia SIP. Specifically, EPA is approving changes to Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr), “Gasoline Dispensing Facility—Stage I,” with the exception of changes to subparagraph 391-3-1-.02(2)(rr)16.(x). EPA is finalizing the approval of these changes because they are consistent with the CAA.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and do 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);

• 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 mandates 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• 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, February 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.”

GA EPD did not evaluate EJ 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 EJ 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 2, 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, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

I. Background

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP and are identified in part 52—“Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the state regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52 but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that EPA has approved a given state regulation or specified changes to the given regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a state implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action for violations of the SIP.

The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on proposed revisions containing new or revised state regulations. A submission from a state can revise one or more rules in their entirety or portions of rules. The state indicates the changes in the submission (such as by using redline/strikethrough text) and EPA then takes action on the requested changes. EPA establishes a docket for its actions using a unique Docket Identification Number, which is listed in each action. These dockets and the complete submission are available for viewing on www.regulations.gov.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference, into the Code of Federal Regulations, materials approved by EPA into each SIP. These changes revised the format for the identification of the SIP in 40 CFR part 52, streamlined the mechanisms for announcing EPA approval of revisions to a SIP, and streamlined the mechanisms for EPA's updating of the IBR information contained for each SIP in 40 CFR part 52. The revised procedures also called for EPA to maintain “SIP Compilations” that contain the federally approved regulations and source-specific permits submitted by each state agency.

EPA generally updates these SIP Compilations on an annual basis. Under the revised procedures, EPA must periodically publish an informational document in the rules section of the Federal Register notifying the public that updates have been made to a SIP Compilation for a particular state. EPA began applying the 1997 revised procedures to North Carolina on May 20, 1999 (64 FR 27465), Forsyth County on August 9, 2002 (67 FR 51763), Mecklenburg County on October 22, 2002 (67 FR 64999), Western North Carolina on October 26, 2018 (83 FR 54032), and EPA-Approved North Carolina Source-Specific Requirements on November 24, 2020 (85 FR 74884), and is providing this notification in accordance with such procedures.

In this action, EPA is providing notification of an update to the materials incorporated by reference into the North Carolina SIP as of April 29, 2023, and identified in 40 CFR 52.1770(c) and (d). This update includes SIP materials submitted by North Carolina and approved by EPA since the last IBR update. See 83 FR 54032 (October 26, 2018). In addition, EPA is providing notification of the following corrections and clarifying changes to 40 CFR 52.1770(c) and (e):

EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make an action effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This administrative action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs, makes corrections and clarifying changes to the tables in the CFR, and makes ministerial changes to the prefatory heading to the tables in the CFR. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment for this administrative action is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification (and corrections) only reflect existing law. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the public notification of the updated North Carolina SIP Compilation and notification of corrections to the North Carolina “Identification of Plan” portion of the CFR. Further, pursuant to section 553(d)(3), making this action immediately effective benefits the public by immediately updating both the SIP Compilation and the CFR “Identification of plan” section (which includes table entry corrections).

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 regulations promulgated by North Carolina, previously approved by EPA and federally effective before April 29, 2023, contained in “North Carolina, Volume 1, 40 CFR 52.1770(c)(1), EPA-Approved North Carolina Regulations”, “North Carolina, Volume 2, 40 CFR 52.1770(c)(2), EPA-Approved Forsyth County Regulations”, “North Carolina, Volume 3, 40 CFR 52.1770(c)(3), EPA-Approved Mecklenburg County Regulations”, “North Carolina, Volume 4, 40 CFR 52.1770(c)(4), EPA-Approved Western North Carolina Regulations,” and “North Carolina, Volume 5, 40 CFR 52.1770(d), EPA-Approved Source-Specific Regulations”. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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 final rule and notification of administrative change 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.

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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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.” EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. 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 EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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

EPA also believes that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. This is because prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the North Carolina SIP Compilation previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA believes judicial review of this action under section 307(b)(1) is not available.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes blueline tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS prepared the FMP, and the FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights in this temporary rule are given in round weight.

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) specify the commercial ACL for blueline tilefish of 117,148 lb (53,137 kg), and the commercial accountability measure for blueline tilefish. NMFS is required to close the commercial sector when its ACL is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS estimates that for the 2023 fishing year, commercial landings of blueline tilefish will reach the commercial ACL by August 2, 2023. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic blueline tilefish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern time on August 2, 2023, through December 31, 2023.

During the commercial closure, all sale or purchase of blueline tilefish is prohibited. While the recreational harvest of blueline tilefish is open, harvest of blueline tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187. The bag and possession limits for blueline tilefish apply in state or Federal waters of the South Atlantic on a vessel for which NMFS has issued a valid commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the closure of the blueline tilefish commercial sector at 50 CFR 622.193(z)(1)(i) have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect blueline tilefish, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL.

For the reasons stated earlier, the Assistant Administrator also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries, including BFT fisheries, are managed under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 divides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements, such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under a quota category is prohibited on or after the effective date and time of a closure notice for that category, for the remainder of the fishing year, until the opening of the relevant subsequent quota period, or until such date as specified.

As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area). The Harpoon category baseline quota is 59.2 mt. Effective July 21, 2023, NMFS transferred 10.8 mt from the Reserve category to the Harpoon category, resulting in an adjusted quota of 70.0 mt for the Harpoon category and 27.4 mt for the Reserve category (88 FR 48136, July 26, 2023). As described under § 635.27(a)(4), the Harpoon category quota is only available between June 1 and November 15 of each year.

To date, reported landings for the Harpoon category total approximately 68.5 mt. Based on these landings data, as well as average catch rates and anticipated fishing conditions, NMFS projects that the Harpoon category adjusted subquota of 70.0 mt will be reached shortly. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant ( i.e., measuring 73 inches (185 cm) CFL or greater) BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas Harpoon category must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on July 30, 2023. The Harpoon category BFT fishery will be closed for the remainder of the Harpoon category season, which ends November 15, 2023, and thus for the year. The Harpoon category will reopen automatically on June 1, 2024, for the 2024 fishing season. This action applies to Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category (commercial) permitted vessels, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to implement actions in a timely manner such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer-reporting requirement, Harpoon category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing https://www.hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling 888-872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://www.hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity to provide comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and an opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and the available quota for the category is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings exceeding the Harpoon category quota. Taking this action does not raise conservation and management concerns. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), there is also good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

The regulations at 50 CFR part 648 require specifications for maximum sustainable yield, initial optimum yield, allowable biological catch (ABC), domestic annual harvest (DAH), domestic annual processing, joint venture processing, and total allowable levels of foreign fishing for the species managed under the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The procedures for setting the annual initial specifications are described in § 648.22.

In 2023, the longfin squid Trimester II quota was increased by 50 percent to account for an underage in Trimester I catch. The remainder of the 2023 quota for longfin squid will become available on September 1, 2023.

When the Regional Administrator projects that 90 percent of the longfin squid Trimester II quota will be harvested before August 15, the regulations at § 648.24(a)(1) require NMFS to close the directed fishery in Federal waters for longfin squid for the remainder of the trimester. Regulations at § 648.26(b)(2)(iii) state that while such a closure is in effect, vessels are prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing more than 250 pounds (lb) (113.4 kilograms (kg)) of longfin squid at any time per trip, and from landing longfin squid more than once per calendar day, unless the vessel meets all the conditions described at § 648.26(b)(2)(iv). The Regional Administrator monitors longfin squid fishery catch based on dealer reports, and other available information. Regulations at § 648.24(d) require that upon determining that a closure is necessary, NMFS must: Notify the Executive Directors of the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; notify permit holders at least 72 hr before the effective date of the closure; notify recreational participants in the fishery; and publish notification of the closure in the Federal Register .

Based on dealer reports and other available information, the Regional Administrator has determined that 90 percent of the longfin squid Trimester II quota will be harvested by August 2, 2023. Therefore, except as described below, effective 00:01 hr local time on August 2, 2023, vessels may not fish for, possess, or land more than 250 lb (113.4 kg) of longfin squid at any time per trip, and may only land longfin squid once per calendar day, through 24 hr local time on August 31, 2023. Vessels that enter port before 00:01 hr local time on August 2, 2023, may land and sell more than 250 lb (113.4 kg) of longfin squid from that trip.

During Trimester 2, the regulations at § 648.26(b)(2)(iv) provide an exception to the incidental limit specified above, such that vessels issued a Tier 1 or Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permit may possess more than 250 lb (113.4 kg) of longfin squid per trip, provided that the vessel: Declares into the directed Illex fishery via its vessel monitoring system; fishes in the Illex Squid Exemption Area (as defined in Table 1 and at § 648.23(a)(5)); possesses more than 10,000 lb (4,535.9 kg) of Illex squid on board; and possesses less than 15,000 lb (6,803.9 kg) (Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit) or 5,000 lb (2,268.0 kg) (Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permit) of longfin squid on board. All fishing gear must be stowed and rendered not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2 once such a vessel is landward of the coordinates defining the Illex Squid Exemption Area specified at § 648.23(a)(5).

Also effective 00:01 hr local time on August 2, 2023, through 24 hr local time on August 31, 2023, federally permitted dealers may not purchase more than 250 lb (113.4 kg) of longfin squid from a federally permitted longfin squid vessel unless it is from a trip landed by a vessel that entered port before 00:01 hr local time on August 2, 2023; except that they may purchase up to 15,000 lb (6,803 kg) of longfin squid from vessels issued a Tier 1 longfin squid moratorium permit or 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) from vessels issued a Tier 2 longfin squid moratorium permit if such vessels that were on a declared Illex squid trip in the Illex Squid Exemption Area and such vessels possess more than 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of Illex squid on board.

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

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The longfin squid Trimester II fishery opened for the 2023 fishing year on May 1, 2023. Data and other information indicating the longfin squid fleet will have landed at least 90 percent of the 2023 Trimester II quota have only recently become available. Landings data is updated on a weekly basis, and NMFS monitors catch data on a daily basis as catch increases toward the limit. Further, high-volume catch and landings in this fishery increases total catch relative to the quota quickly. The regulations at § 648.24(a)(1) require such action to ensure that longfin squid vessels do not exceed the 2023 Trimester II quota. If implementation of this action is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this Trimester II may be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. Additionally, if the Trimester II quota is exceeded, the excess must be deducted from a future Trimester and would reduce future fishing opportunities. Furthermore, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this process when these provisions were put in place. Based on these considerations, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.