I. Background

The regulations in 7 CFR part 3, “Debt Management,” prescribe standards and procedures for use by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agencies in the collection, compromise, suspension, or termination of debts owed to the United States. This rule clarifies the scope of debt collection activity as it applies to public international organizations and the availability of administrative review under 7 CFR part 3 for certain debt collection activities involving the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

First, § 3.1, “Purpose and scope,” includes categories of debt collection actions to which 7 CFR part 3 does not apply. One of those categories, found in paragraph (c)(3), is the “[c]ollection of debts owed by foreign governments and, sovereign institutions of foreign governments.”

This amendment clarifies that, in addition to debts owed by foreign governments and sovereign institutions of foreign governments, debts owed by public international organizations are outside the scope of USDA's debt collection regulations. A public international organization is an organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288-288f). Examples include the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations. This amendment aligns USDA's debt collection regulations with those of other U.S. Government agencies, such as the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development, that work with public international organizations. Consistent with the treatment of public international organizations under U.S. law, these agencies group the collection of debts owed by public international organizations along with the collection of debts owed by foreign governments and sovereign institutions of foreign governments in the list of debt collection actions to which their debt management regulations do not apply. Therefore, USDA amends § 3.1(c)(3) to include public international organizations.

Second, 7 CFR part 3, subpart F, establishes consolidated administrative review procedures for debts subject to administrative offset, administrative wage garnishment, and disclosure to credit reporting agencies under subparts D and E of part 3. However, there is a list in § 3.60(b) of certain debt collection proceedings initiated by USDA agencies that are subject to the separate administrative review procedures in 7 CFR part 11, National Appeals Division, rather than the procedures in 7 CFR part 3, subpart F. Among the debt collection proceedings listed in § 3.60(b) are those initiated by CCC.

The statutory authority for the National Appeals Division only specifically requires coverage for the CCC “with respect to domestic programs” (7 U.S.C. 6991(2)(B)). This draws a statutory distinction between domestic CCC programs and CCC programs administered outside the United States by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service. To clarify that non-domestic CCC programs are addressed under the administrative review procedures of 7 CFR part 3, subpart F, and not subject to the procedures provided in 7 CFR part 11, USDA amends 7 CFR 3.60(b) by adding the qualifier “(with respect to domestic programs)” to the mention of CCC-initiated debt collection proceedings.

This rule is ministerial in nature and makes only clarifying, technical adjustments to align USDA's debt management regulations. Accordingly, pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, USDA finds, for good cause, that prior notice and other public procedure with respect to this action are not necessary and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, this rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this regulatory action does not meet the criteria for significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as amended by Executive Order 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review.

As noted, this rule is ministerial in nature and makes only clarifying, technical adjustments to align USDA's debt management regulations. Accordingly, there are no economic impacts associated with this action.

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because USDA was not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, finalizes amendments to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 905, as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida. Part 905, referred to as the “Order,” is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is composed of citrus producers and shippers operating within the area of production, and a non-industry member.

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.

In addition, this rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This rule has also been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule shall not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or supersede any State program covering oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(15)(A)), any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.

Section 8c(17) of the Act and the supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. In determining whether informal rulemaking is appropriate, AMS is required to consider the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.

AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendments in this final rule are not unduly complex. The amendments are primarily administrative in nature and adapt the Committee's rules of practice to better reflect the current state of the Florida citrus industry. In addition, as discussed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section below, the amendments are not expected to impose any costs on affected entities.

The Committee unanimously recommended the amendments following deliberations at a public meeting held on November 19, 2020. This rule will amend the Order by reducing the size of the Committee and lowering quorum requirements, revising the nomination and selection processes, eliminating the requirement to allocate Committee seats based on volume from each district, and adding a new section to provide the Committee authority to receive voluntary contributions for promotion/research projects. Finally, outdated language in the Order was revised and other conforming changes were made to align the Order with the amendments.

A proposed rule soliciting comments on the amendments was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2022 (87 FR 39003). Seven comments were received in response to the proposed rule, all of which were in support of the proposal. After reviewing the comments, AMS republished the proposed rule without change along with the referendum order in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023 (88 FR 2862). That document directed that a referendum among Florida citrus producers be conducted from April 3, 2023, through May 1, 2023, to determine whether they favor the proposals. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by either two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum or by those representing at least two-thirds of the volume of citrus grown by those voting in the referendum.

The results of the referendum show that all four amendments were favored by over 97 percent of the eligible producers who voted and over 99 percent of the volume voted favored all the amendments.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.

There are approximately 14 handlers of Florida citrus who are subject to regulation under the Order and approximately 500 citrus producers in the regulated area. At the time the initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared (88 FR 2862), small agricultural service firms were defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of no more than $30,000,000, small agricultural producers of orange groves were defined as those having annual receipts of no more than $3,500,000, and small agricultural producers of citrus (except orange) groves were defined as those having annual receipts of no more than $3,750,000 (13 CFR 121.201). The SBA subsequently updated these standards and, at the time this final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared, the SBA defined small businesses as those having annual receipts of no more than $4,000,000 for orange producers, $4,250,000 for other citrus producers, and $34,000,000 for handlers (13 CFR 121.201). Thus, AMS changed the thresholds to reflect the new SBA thresholds in this final rule. The changes do not impact AMS's ultimate determination regarding the impact of the rule on small entities.

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the weighted average packing house door equivalent price for fresh Florida oranges for the 2022-23 season was approximately $21.07 per box with total shipments of around 1,612,000 boxes. Based on this information, the majority of orange handlers have average annual receipts of significantly less than $34,000,000 ($21.07 multiplied by 1,612,000 boxes equals $33,964,840, divided by 14 handlers equals $2,426,060 per handler). The weighted average packing house door price for other Florida citrus for the 2022-23 season was $38.24 per box with total shipments of 1,402,000 boxes. Based on this information, the majority of other citrus handlers have average annual receipts of significantly less than $34,000,000 ($38.24 multiplied by 1,402,000 boxes equals $53,612,000, divided by 14 handlers equals $3,829,428.57 per handler).

In addition, based on the NASS data, the weighted average orange grower price for the 2022-23 season was estimated at $18.90 per box of fresh oranges. Based on grower price, shipment data, and the total number of Florida orange growers, the average annual grower revenue for oranges is well below $4,000,000 ($18.90 multiplied by 1,612,000 boxes equals $30,465,823.03, divided by 500 growers equals $60,931.65 per grower). The weighted average other citrus grower price for the 2022-23 season was estimated at $29.08 per box of fresh citrus. Based on grower price, shipment data, and the total number of Florida citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue for other citrus is well below $4,250,000 ($29.08 multiplied by 1,402,000 boxes equals $40,775,768, divided by 500 growers equals $81,551.54 per grower). Thus, the majority of Florida citrus handlers and growers may be classified as small entities.

AMS has determined that the amendments, as effectuated by this final rule, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Rather, large and small entities alike would be expected to benefit from the Committee's improved ability to address important issues of interest to all on a timely basis. No small businesses are unduly or disproportionately burdened.

The amendments to the Order are necessary because the Florida citrus industry has undergone consolidation and crop reduction. Decreasing the Committee's size makes it more reflective of today's industry and easier to fulfill the quorum requirement. Handlers routinely source fruit from across the state, therefore the differentiation of districts no longer serves a practical purpose. Adding an authority to accept voluntary contributions from domestic sources allows the Committee to collaborate with other organizations for research/promotional activities. No economic impact is expected from these amendments because they will not establish any new regulatory requirements on handlers, nor will they have any assessment or funding implications. There will be no change in financial costs, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements because of these amendments.

Alternatives to this action were considered by the Committee. However, due to changes in the industry, AMS believes the amendments are justified and necessary to ensure the Committee's ability to locally administer the program.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary because of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida citrus handlers or producers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public-sector agencies. AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

AMS is committed to complying 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.

Like all Committee meetings, the November 19, 2020, Committee meeting was widely publicized throughout the production area. Meetings are held virtually or in a hybrid style. Participants both large and small have a choice whether to attend in person or virtually and can participate in the Committee's deliberations on all issues.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2022 (87 FR 39003). A copy of the rule was sent via email to the Committee Manager for disposal to all Committee members and the Florida citrus industry. The proposed rule was made available by USDA through the internet and the Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day comment period ending August 29, 2022, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposals. Seven comments were received during the comment period, all of which were in support of the proposed amendments. Based on all the information available to AMS at this time, including the comments received in response to the proposed rule, no substantive changes will be made to the amendments as proposed.

A proposed rule and referendum order was then published on January 18, 2023 (88 FR 2862). That document directed that a referendum among Florida citrus producers be conducted during the period of April 3, 2023, through May 1, 2023, to determine whether they favored the proposed amendments to the Order. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum or by those representing at least two-thirds of the volume of citrus grown by those voting in the referendum. The results show that over 97 percent of the eligible producers who voted and over 99 percent of the volume voted favored all four amendments. All of the amendments were passed.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of Marketing Order 905; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

1. Marketing Order 905, as amended, and as hereby further amended, and all the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

2. Marketing Order 905, as amended, and as hereby further amended, regulates the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the Order;

3. Marketing Order 905, as amended, and as hereby further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area, which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several marketing orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

4. Marketing Order 905, as amended, and as hereby further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of citrus produced or packed in the production area; and

5. All handling of citrus produced or packed in the production area, as defined in Marketing Order 905, is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

It is hereby determined that:

1. The issuance of this amendatory Order, amending the aforesaid Order, is favored or approved by producers representing at least two-thirds of the volume of citrus produced by those voting in a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of August 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022, were engaged within the production area in the production of such citrus.

2. The issuance of this amendatory Order advances the interests of producers of citrus in the production area pursuant to the declared policy of the Act.

It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and pummelos grown in Florida shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said Order as hereby to be amended as follows:

The provisions amending the Order contained in the proposed rule and referendum order, published in the Federal Register (88 FR 2862) on January 18, 2023, will be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the Order and are set forth in full herein.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 905 is as follows:

The objectives of this final rule are to:

• Increase direct lender associations' YBS activity to a diverse population of borrowers;

• Reinforce the supervisory responsibilities of the funding banks, authorized by section 4.19 of the Farm Credit Act; and

• Require each direct lender association to enhance the strategic plan for their YBS program.

When developing YBS programs, direct lender associations should consider marketing to all populations of YBS farmers and ranchers. Underserved communities and groups can be overlooked or excluded from marketing efforts and education outreach, leaving out a potential borrowing base.

Underserved groups include those who have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as members of the group without regard to their individual qualities. Examples of underserved communities include, but are not limited to, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, LGBTQIA+, women, veterans, and persons with disabilities. These are examples of communities with a high potential for individuals who may fall into the Y, B, and/or S categories of borrowers, and direct lender associations should target such communities specifically to reach the entire universe of potential borrowers. Underserved communities can often be reached in schools and universities, professional and social organizations, at community gatherings, and local events.

Every effort should be made to reach the entire universe of potential Y, B, and S borrowers. Direct lender associations should also work with their local Farm Service Agency representatives to assist the Farm Credit System with its directive to serve all creditworthy Y, B, and S borrowers by breaking down bureaucratic barriers to entry.

The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), 1 establishes the Farm Credit Administration as the safety and soundness regulator of the Farm Credit System (FCS or System). As stated in the FCA Strategic Plan for FYs 2018-2023, our mission is to ensure that System institutions are safe, sound, and dependable sources of credit and related services for all creditworthy and eligible persons in agriculture and rural America. The System has a unique mission to serve YBS farmers and ranchers. Section 4.19 of the Act  2 requires each direct lender association to establish a program to furnish sound and constructive credit and related services to YBS farmers and ranchers.

We continue to believe the System's YBS mission is important to enable small and start-up farmers and ranchers to make successful entries into agricultural production. Also, we believe it is important to ensure marketing and outreach efforts include all eligible and creditworthy persons, with specific outreach to achieve diversity and inclusion. The System's YBS mission is also critical to facilitate the transfer of agricultural operations from one generation to the next. We remain committed to ensuring the System fulfills its important mission to YBS farmers and ranchers.

We published a proposed rule on June 16, 2022 (NPRM), recommending updates to FCA's YBS regulations, which were last updated almost 20 years ago. This final rule largely adopts the proposal with certain changes made in response to comments, with a particular focus on reducing an increased administrative burden. Comment letters, along with our responses are discussed below.

The comment period ended August 15, 2022. We received 67 comment letters. Most comments came from System institutions or persons affiliated with the System, with one letter from the Farm Credit Council (Council) acting on behalf of its membership. We also received three letters from trade groups representing commercial banking.

Most commenters requested we withdraw the proposed rule and keep the existing regulations in place. Some commenters offered solutions to bolster practices such as continued collaboration with FCA and System workgroups without changes to the existing regulation. Commenters stated that the rule was administratively burdensome, human capital intensive, difficult for smaller direct lenders to implement, and did not achieve the shared goal of increasing YBS activity.

We also received comments in support of the proposed rule that agreed with the framework and accountability the rule requires, stating the rule changes should be done with more than incremental progress in mind. Another comment supported the idea of increased reporting.

System commenters expressed concern that the prospect of a YBS rating system and the proposed requirements relating to funding bank oversight may encourage all YBS programs to “look alike” or to fit into a “cookie cutter” mold. While one of the proposed rule's stated objectives was to provide elements that will be evaluated as part of a rating system to measure year-over-year YBS progress, we did not propose to create any such rating system itself through the rulemaking. For clarity, however, this final rule omits rating system matters in its statement of objectives.

Next, we disagree that the proposed changes to bank oversight responsibilities will lead to “cookie cutter” YBS programs. We have long encouraged direct lender associations to tailor YBS programs to serve the specific needs of borrowers in the different lending territories. Existing FCA regulation § 614.4165(c), which is redesignated paragraph (d) in this final rule, states that each direct lender association “must establish a program to provide sound and constructive credit and services to YBS farmers and ranchers in its territory.” The reference to “its territory” illustrates that each YBS program should reflect the credit and service needs of YBS borrowers within that lending territory. While this rulemaking enhances and strengthens bank oversight responsibilities and direct lender association YBS program standards, it does not prescribe or encourage uniformity of content among YBS programs. We continue to expect varying approaches among the direct lender associations, appropriate to the needs of borrowers in each lending territory.

The proposed rule had no substantive changes to the definitions in current paragraph (a). We proposed grammatical changes, including removing the word “and” between farmers and ranchers, and adjusting punctuation. We received one comment on the definition of a “beginning” farmer; however, that term is not defined in regulatory text. The definitions in paragraph (a) will be finalized as proposed.

Commenters frequently raised concerns on the topic of bank oversight. Two non-System commenters supported the concept of increased bank oversight, stating they would like to see reform in reporting and tracking, and that they believe bank review and approval will help with this. System commenters opposed increased bank oversight for a variety of reasons, which will be discussed as they relate to each section of the rule text. The proposed preamble stated that we believed funding banks were in a unique position to know the YBS activities of their affiliated direct lender associations and see how those associations respond to the needs of their respective borrowers. Commenters strongly disagreed, stating funding banks do not have “boots on the ground” and are not familiar with local YBS markets and needs. We considered this feedback as we drafted the final rule, which removes certain elements of the proposed bank oversight requirements.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1) required each bank, among other things, to adopt written policies directing direct lender associations to establish YBS programs, ensure direct lender association coordination with others, and report to FCA. A bank trade group commented that the proposed rule lacked a requirement for direct involvement or representation of YBS farmers and ranchers in the process of creating and reviewing YBS programs. To address this, the commenter recommended that each bank be directed to adopt a written policy requiring the bank and any affiliated direct lender association to form a committee comprised of local YBS farmers and ranchers. The commenter further recommended that these committees be vested with authority over YBS programs, independent of the board of directors of each institution. We decline to adopt this recommendation because it is outside the scope of the proposal. Moreover, because Farm Credit is a cooperative system run by member-borrowers who elect their respective System institutions' boards of directors, YBS farmers and ranchers are structurally situated to be heard and represented at the board level. We also note that as a matter of practice, many direct lender associations have various YBS committees and advisory groups that provide input and are involved in program development. We do not believe this additional involvement and representation from YBS farmers and ranchers is necessary at the bank level given the current involvement of member borrowers in System governance at their direct lender associations.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(i) required each funding bank to adopt written policies that direct their affiliated direct lender associations to establish an annual strategic YBS plan. While we did not receive comments on this specific paragraph, we received many comments on the YBS strategic plan itself, which are addressed in section D. Direct lender association YBS strategic plan. Because the proposal for an independent YBS strategic plan is not being adopted in this final rule, the requirement for bank policy direction on such plan has been removed.

The proposed rule redesignated paragraph (b)(2) of the current regulation as paragraph (b)(1)(ii). The text of this coordination requirement remained unchanged, but nonetheless we received three comments from the System stating it is unclear how much coordination between organizations is acceptable and how coordination can be objectively evaluated. Although these comments are outside the scope of the proposal's substantive changes, coordination efforts are generally sufficient if they accomplish the objective that YBS programs “shall assure that such credit and services are available in coordination with other institutions of the Farm Credit System serving the territory and with other governmental and private sources of credit.” Act § 4.19(a). We expect that specific coordination efforts will be devised on an institution-by-institution basis. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) will be finalized as proposed.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii) required each bank to establish a policy to direct each affiliated direct lender association to submit a YBS strategic plan and any other information regarding its YBS program deemed necessary by the bank. We received two System comments and one comment from the Council on this requirement. In summary, the comments stated that “any other information deemed necessary by the bank” was vague, arbitrary, and therefore burdensome. There was concern over inconsistency of requirements between the banks and the stifling of creativity for the direct lender. Further, there was commenter concern on the relationship with the direct lender and bank being damaged, with various reasons listed. We received many comments on the strategic YBS plan itself, which are addressed in that section. Because we are not adopting the proposal's requirement for an independent YBS strategic plan, we are removing proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iii) from this final rule.

Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is redesignated as paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and finalized as proposed. Although we only proposed a redesignation from the current paragraph (b)(4) and a replacement of “agency” for “FCA,” we still received four comments. Commenters agreed that no changes were needed to the data reporting requirement of “complete and accurate” in the rule text, but they did mention concerns surrounding subjectivity of criteria, which has not been a material issue in the past. Commenters did not provide reasons this would be a concern going forward.

A trade group for commercial banks commented that “achievements” may be interpreted as denoting completion and success. The commenter stated that since success should not be presumed, we should add “shortfalls” as an element for the bank to report on in addition to “operations” and “achievements.” We decline to adopt this specific change because paragraph (c)(2)(ii) as finalized requires the operational and strategic business plan to discuss variances and reasons for the results. We expect that both positive and negative variances will be discussed in the plan. Reporting of negative variances thus addresses the commenter's suggestion.

We received 46 comments on proposed paragraph (b)(2). Two commenters supported funding bank oversight and approval while the rest opposed this requirement. Those in favor wanted to see reform in reporting and tracking and believed that bank oversight would help in that area. They stated that oversight and accountability are necessary, and this rule is a step in the right direction for critical accountability.

Those opposed to the proposed changes relating to funding bank oversight raised the following issues:

• cost and administrative burden;

• negative impacts on cooperative structure and local control;

• no appeal or resolution process;

• expansion of current funding bank duties;

• lack of funding bank personnel expertise regarding individual YBS markets;

• biased, preferential, or inconsistent evaluation among the four funding banks;

• lack of guidance on goal standards or what is considered acceptable/successful;

• no value added to YBS programs;

• homogenization of YBS programs resulting from a “uniform” bank approval process; and

• exam findings and communication to the System not warranting increased bank oversight.

To address these comments, we made changes to the rule by:

• removing the requirement for an independent YBS strategic plan and associated funding bank approval and review,

• providing that funding bank review and approval shall solely be to determine whether the YBS program contains all required components,

• updating the reference from paragraph (c) in the current regulation to paragraph (d) in the final rule, and

• stating that funding bank communication of an incomplete plan must be in writing and sent to FCA within 30 days.

The statute provides that association YBS programs are “[u]nder the policies of the Farm Credit Bank board,” and that “[e]ach program shall be subject to review and approval by the supervising bank.” The System's comments and representations about funding bank lack of expertise, staff knowledge and capability with respect to YBS programs suggest there is room for the banks to improve their capabilities in this area.

As in the existing regulation, banks will still be required to review and approve each direct lender association's YBS program. This rule clarifies that such review and approval must be performed annually. We find this requirement complements—and is logically connected to—the bank's responsibility for creating and submitting the operations and achievements report to FCA. Specifically, annual review and approval of direct lender association YBS programs will give each bank a better understanding of the programs in their territories and ultimately result in more accurate reporting to FCA.

To address concerns about the scope of bank review, however, we are revising the regulatory text so that review and approval shall solely be to determine whether the YBS program contains the components of finalized paragraph (d). As a result, the finalized text more closely tracks the scope of review specified in the current regulation. Notwithstanding the revision, we encourage open dialogue between the bank and direct lender to continually improve program content.

With slight changes from the proposal, this final rule provides that where a bank concludes a YBS program is incomplete, it must communicate that fact in writing to both the direct lender association and FCA within 30 days.

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) required internal controls. Since banks are the main YBS reporting entity to FCA, having a strong internal control environment is critical to safety and soundness. We received four comments from the System, the Council, and a commercial bank trade group. The commercial bank trade group stated that, in the past, internal controls over YBS data reporting processes have been weak. They stated this resulted in inaccurate reporting to FCA. They went on to state weak reporting is a concern they'd like to see addressed. The System and Council stated that establishing new internal controls will create redundancy and inefficiencies. As discussed in sections above and below, direct lenders are not required to have an independent YBS strategic plan in the finalized rule. Therefore, bank internal control requirements in the proposed rule for direct lender YBS plans have been removed. The Council commented that banks should be able to rely on the internal controls of the direct lender. The bank's responsibilities for review and approval of YBS programs and data compilation and reporting to FCA are independent of direct lenders. For this reason, it is necessary that each bank has internal controls over the processes they perform, just as direct lenders do. Each organization in the System should have internal controls over their respective YBS responsibilities.

Proposed paragraph (c)(1) required each direct lender association to adopt an independent 3-year YBS strategic plan to guide the direct lender's required YBS program. We received 31 comments on this requirement from the System and a commercial bank trade group, all of whom were opposed for a variety of reasons.

Many stated that YBS borrowers are critical to the System's sustainability, are an integral part of direct lender's operations, and are a key component of the overall business plan. As such, YBS components are woven into almost every aspect of a direct lender's annual business plan. Commenters went on to say that YBS borrowers should be considered in the context of the whole business and included as part of the overall business plan rather than separated out. The FCS commenters stated that creating an independent plan outside of the business plan would create disconnected, redundant, and unnecessary administrative burdens. The FCS commenters noted that staff's time could better be used serving YBS borrowers directly rather than duplicating the business plans.

We considered this input and will not finalize the requirement for an independent YBS strategic plan. We agree that YBS is an integral part of direct lenders' operations and should be incorporated as part of overall business planning. The intent of our proposal was that an independent planning document would put increased emphasis on YBS. However, the same goal can be achieved without creating a separate document. It is our intent that direct lenders give thoughtful consideration into their strategic lending to YBS borrowers, in both current and potential markets.

While we are not changing the existing requirement for a 3-year planning period in the operational and strategic business plan, we still received comments on this area. Some commenters stated that a 3-year plan is not reasonable given volatility and uncertainty, making future years a guess. We believe it is important to be forward looking and innovative in strategic business planning. Three years has been established as a minimum planning period. We continue to believe that three years is appropriate for planning. Some commenters stated the requirement to adopt a 3-year plan within 30 days after the commencement of the year is not enough time to analyze the past year's data and conflicts with other business planning activity. While we understand that the period around the new calendar year may be particularly busy, the timeframe for adoption of the plan is specified in the existing regulation, and we have not proposed a change in this regard. We believe the new calendar year continues to be an appropriate time to conclude activity and begin reporting processes.

Paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed rule required that the strategic plan must detail the operations of the YBS program including all components in paragraph (d). We received no comments specific to this section. This requirement has been combined into the finalized (c)(1).

In proposed paragraph (c)(3)(i), direct lenders were required to analyze performance from the previous year in achieving components of their YBS program listed in proposed paragraph (d). We received a comment from a banking trade group that analyzing only performance and effectiveness but not identifying areas to improve upon is not a balanced approach. While we understand the commenter's point, it is our expectation that direct lenders take a balanced approach when analyzing performance. If a goal is not achieved, it must still be reported on.

Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii) received no comments. We redesignated and finalized it as paragraph (c)(2)(ii). Proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii) received no comments, and we redesignated and finalized it as paragraph (c)(2)(iii). We replaced the word, “efforts,” with “qualitative factors and quantitative goals.” We added the words, “expand access to,” which derived from proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iv).

We received seven comments from the FCS opposing proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iv). The requirement proposed that direct lenders assess the effectiveness in providing efforts resulting in credit provided to new and expanding YBS operations. Commenters discussed the high subjectivity of such data and stated they are unclear how effectiveness is measured. Examples were given of a person attending a seminar and several years later becoming a borrower. How would direct lenders track and record such activity? Commenters stated databases are not currently in place to collect such data and it is cost prohibitive with little value added to create a database. Commenters also believed that tracking this data provided no value to YBS borrowers. After assessing comments, we added the words “and expand access to” which derived from proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iv) to finalized paragraph (c)(3)(iii) and removed the other requirements of proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iv). We believe that tracking such data and identifying how direct lender association YBS programs are assisting and expanding access to credit and education for YBS farmers and ranchers does provide value to YBS farmers and ranchers by strengthening and improving lender's YBS programs. To comply with this provision, direct lenders must assess how their YBS program components assist and expand access to credit and education for YBS farmers and ranchers.

We received one comment on proposed paragraph (d) from a commercial banking trade group in support of the requirement. There were no opposing comments. The comment stated that the components have been long awaited and both qualitative and quantitative factors play important roles in YBS lending. Paragraph (d) is finalized as proposed.

We received one comment from a commercial banking trade group regarding the mission statement requirement in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A). The commenter stated that the mission statement should explicitly recognize the importance of YBS and ensure support at the direct lender level. We believe the requirement is satisfactory as drafted in accomplishing this purpose, and finalized it as proposed.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) is finalized as proposed. We received two comments on the direct lender internal controls requirement in proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B). One System commenter stated that adding internal controls adds additional time, energy, and costs to reporting. Internal controls are an existing requirement that direct lenders should already have in place. Another commenter asked that internal controls clarify the extent to which staff must take stakeholder input into account. While encouraged, the rule does not require stakeholder input, nor is it necessarily a component of an internal controls system.

There was one comment from a commercial banking trade group, supporting the use of credit enhancement tools. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) is finalized as proposed.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) is finalized as proposed. It requires credit and related services coordination with System institutions, governmental and private sources. This is a continuation of requirements in existing paragraph (c)(3)(ii). We received nine comments on this requirement. One comment from a commercial banking trade group supported third-party coordination on credit and related services. Eight commenters, all from the System, opposed this existing requirement. Commenters stated that where direct lender associations are over-chartered within the same market, coordination efforts will entice competition rather than healthy collaboration. Another System commenter stated that the prospect of interterritorial competition was untenable and would potentially damage their association and members. Some commenters stated that collaboration is already occurring, and a regulatory requirement is not needed. System commenters were worried that this requirement may be interpreted by funding banks to force best practices for one lender onto another lender, even if the practices may not apply or work, to achieve bank approval. Commenters stated that statutory borrower rights requirements were not in the commercial banks' interest and, as such, posed a barrier to coordination. Another commenter mentioned that agencies such as FSA or other national YBS organizations already experience time constraints. When multiple direct lender associations request collaboration at the same time, particularly in over-chartered areas or small towns, these resource issues will be compounded. Lastly a commenter stated that the System does not have an adequate portal to capture and highlight the depth of the collaboration efforts that occur. As an existing requirement, we have seen the importance and benefit of third-party coordination. The requirement leaves the option open to direct lenders in choosing with which parties they coordinate. We understand that some relationships work better than others. Nonetheless, we encourage direct lenders to continue outreach and third-party coordination, for the betterment of YBS farmers and ranchers.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is finalized as proposed. It requires implementation of outreach programs, which may include marketing and education. This is a continuation of requirements in existing paragraph (c)(3)(iii). We received seven comments on this requirement. One comment from a commercial banking trade group supported minimum requirements for marketing, outreach, and education. Six commenters, all from the System, opposed this existing requirement. Commenters stated that the rule is silent on criteria to determine effectiveness and that measuring effectiveness is subjective. One commenter stated that it would frustrate and confuse potential customers and business partners when a direct lender comes to an event with predetermined measurers for effectiveness. Another commenter asked if the board, management, or banks would be determining the effectiveness of activities, going on to say that this requirement is redundant and burdensome. In the existing requirement, the agency has not identified material weaknesses with direct lenders implementing effective outreach, marketing, and educational programs.

We are unclear as to why carrying this requirement forward into the finalized rule would be burdensome. Results have shown for a direct lender YBS program to be successful, it is critical to have more components than merely the extension of credit. Some of these components include marketing to underserved segments, providing new borrower education, and listening to feedback from YBS farmers and ranchers.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) strikes the word “reasonably” and is finalized as proposed. It requires using reliable demographic data in developing quantitative goals, along with identifying the sources of the data. We received seven comments on this requirement. One comment from a commercial banking trade group stated that quantitative goals must be bolstered with additional requirements and that more than one goal should be used. This commenter did not like basing the understanding of goals on reasonably reliable demographic data and stated that sources should be recognized and not arbitrary. The six opposing commenters were all from the System. Commenters who opposed this requirement shared concerns on the term “reasonably reliable,” saying it provides uncertainty and results in highly subjective interpretations, asking who is to have final determination if the data is reasonably reliable or not. Validation of such data and timeliness were also raised as concerns. Opposing commenters stated validating data would raise significant time and resource concerns. They also stated that USDA census data is several years old before release, not making it the most up-to-date and reliable. Commenters questioned whether direct lenders would be expected to contract with third parties while awaiting USDA data availability to meet this requirement.

Opposing commenters also raised concerns that requiring additional quantitative goals will increase the potential for compromises to be made to existing programs that are effective as a means to meet new goals, adding that there is no incentive for direct lenders to set aggressive goals which may not be met and then result in a lower FCA rating. We believe that striking the word “reasonably” addresses these comments. Reliable data is a key component in developing effective goals. It is our expectation that the direct lender associations obtain the best data available to them when developing goals.

Proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A), (d)(2)(i)(B), (d)(2)(i)(C), and (d)(2)(i)(D) are finalized as proposed. They identify the minimum quantitative goals that a direct lender must establish annually. These requirements carry over unchanged from existing paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv). We received one comment from a commercial banking trade group on proposed paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through (C), stating the goals are arbitrary and unmoored and should be bolstered with additional requirements. We did strengthen this existing requirement by requiring direct lenders to use at least one of the goal categories listed as opposed to the existing requirement that states that such targets may include one of the goal categories listed. Historically, direct lenders rarely used categories other than those listed in the regulation. Keeping the same categories ensures that data can be compared consistently over a range of time periods. Further, databases are already in place in the System to track these categories, which helps minimize regulatory burden and costs. We note these are only minimums and some direct lenders can and do use a combination of these goals or other categories.

Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D), pertaining to goals for capital committed to loans made to YBS borrowers, is finalized as proposed. It is an unchanged requirement compared with existing paragraph (c)(2)(iv), however, we did receive two opposing comments from a commercial bank trade group and the System. Both commenters had similar observations that the requirement was arbitrary and unmoored. One commenter went on to say there is a lack of criteria to determine how much capital a direct lender should allocate to YBS. There was concern that both FCA and the funding bank will have difficulty determining where a program is deficient in the capitalization goal. The final rule does not require direct lenders to have a capital goal. Paragraph (d)(2) only requires each direct lender to have one of the listed goals, not all. Nonetheless, we believe a capital commitment is a best practice and is one method of allowing direct lenders to serve YBS borrowers who may have a higher risk profile, while at the same time mitigating the lender's overall risk in the credit relationship.

We received no comments on the renumbering changes in proposed § 620.5(k)(2). It will be finalized as proposed.

One system commenter concluded that because the NPRM states that “YBS components will no longer be required as part of § 618.8440,” FCA is impermissibly trying to modify § 618.8440 through the proposed rule. No part of this rulemaking revises § 618.8440 or changes its requirements. Our statement in the NPRM merely observed the effect of the proposed deletion of paragraph (e) of § 614.4165, which requires each direct lender association's YBS program targets and goals to be included in its operational and strategic business plan (as separately required under § 618.8440). In any case, since the final rule does not adopt the proposed rule's wholesale deletion of paragraph (e) of § 614.4165, and instead moves it with minor changes to paragraph (c)(1), the substantive requirement to include YBS program components in the operational and strategic business plan will remain intact. As a result, the commenter's concern is addressed.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), FCA hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System, considered together with its affiliated direct lender associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, Farm Credit System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a “major rule,” as the term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-2153; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00688-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Joshua Bragg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 817-222-5366; email joshua.k.bragg@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued ANAC AD 2023-05-02, effective May 18, 2023 (ANAC AD 2023-05-02) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-400 airplanes. The MCAI states unexpected wear, which was beyond the certification limits of the airplane, was found on the wing hinge bearing assembly of the aileron surfaces during the functional test of the aileron control system backlash. Excessive backlash may result in a limit cycle oscillation phenomenon exposing the surrounding structure and systems to unacceptable vibration levels and reducing the airplane controllability.

ANAC has informed the FAA of corrections to ANAC AD 2023-05-02 that were issued in ANAC AD 2023-05-02, Errata, dated May 18, 2023. The FAA has included these corrections in paragraphs (h)(3) and (10) of this AD and has also addressed typographical errors in paragraphs (h)(4) and (5) of this AD.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2153.

ANAC AD 2023-05-02 specifies procedures for repetitive general visual inspections of the press-fitted bushings of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wing ailerons for migration and broken sealant; repetitive detailed inspections to measure the distance between the LH and RH wing aileron surfaces and hinge fittings; repetitive functional checks of the backlash of the LH and RH wing aileron control system; and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative actions include a detailed inspection of the torque values of the attachments parts on the LH and RH wing aileron surfaces; a general visual inspection of the press-fitted bushings on the LH and RH aileron surfaces, as applicable, for damage ( i.e., elongation, scratches, nicks) and rotation or migration ( i.e., gap between the bushing flange and lug, or broken sealant around the bushing); a general visual inspection of the sliding bushings of the LH and RH aileron surfaces, as applicable, for damage ( i.e., scratches, steps, and dents) and migration of the press-fitted bushing pair; a detailed inspection to measure the outer diameter of the sliding bushings; a detailed inspection to check the inner diameter of the press-fitted bushings of certain aileron fittings; measurement of the outer diameters of the mating sliding bushing and bolt shank; and an operational check of the aileron control system, or a rigging procedure and deflection check, as applicable. The corrective actions include retorquing the nuts and installing cotterpins on the bolts and nuts of the attachment parts on the LH and RH wing aileron surfaces; and replacing the bearings and press-fitted and sliding bushings.

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 ADDRESSES section.

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 is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in ANAC AD 2023-05-02 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, ANAC AD 2023-05-02 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with ANAC AD 2023-05-02 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Service information required by ANAC AD 2023-05-02 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2153 after this AD is published.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

There are currently no domestic operators of these products. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the forgoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions 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 these on-condition actions:

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, and

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-25-04, Amendment 39-21847 (86 FR 71129, December 15, 2021) (AD 2021-25-04). AD 2021-25-04 applied to RRD Model Trent 1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3, Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, and Trent 1000-R3 engines. AD 2021-25-04, which was prompted by EASA AD 2020-0243, dated November 5, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0243), required revising the ALS of the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts. The FAA issued AD 2021-25-04 to prevent the failure of critical rotating parts, which could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2021-25-04, EASA superseded EASA AD 2020-0243 with EASA AD 2022-0247, dated December 14, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0247) and then superseded EASA AD 2022-0247 with EASA AD 2023-0115, dated June 7, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0115).

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2023 (88 FR 63885); corrected on September 27, 2023 (88 FR 66316). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0115 (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that the manufacturer published a revised engine TLM to introduce new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1889.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts.

The FAA received a comment from The Boeing Company (Boeing). Boeing supported the NPRM without change.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are 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 the 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.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0115, which specifies procedures for operators to revise the ALS of the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts.

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 .

Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0115 specifies revising the approved Aircraft Maintenance Programme within 12 months after the effective date of EASA AD 2023-0115, this AD requires revising the ALS of the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

This AD does not require compliance with paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of EASA AD 2023-0115.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2023-2051 in the Federal Register on November 2, 2023 (88 FR 75242), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, Statesboro, GA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next FAA Order JO 7400.11 update.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H 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 amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, Statesboro, GA, by increasing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to 7.2-miles (previously 6.5-miles), to support a revised RNAV approach procedure. In addition, this action updates the airport name (formerly Statesboro Municipal Airport) and the geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the area's safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

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 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 5-6.5a.

This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

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

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2023-2052 in the Federal Register on October 18, 2023 (88 FR 71786), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Thomasville Regional Airport, Thomasville, GA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 annually. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next FAA Order JO 7400.11 update.

FAA Order JO 7400.11H 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 amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Thomasville Regional Airport, Thomasville, GA, by updating the airport name (formerly Thomasville Municipal Airport). Also, the radius is increased to 7 miles (previously 6.5 miles), and an extension to the northeast is added. Controlled airspace is necessary for the area's safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

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 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 5-6.5a.

This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

This action extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), from December 30, 2023, to December 30, 2028. SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, prohibits certain flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. The FAA finds this action necessary to address significant safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) associated with the enduring complex conflict in Syria. The FAA also republishes the approval process and exemption information for this flight prohibition SFAR, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. Sections 106(f) and (g) of title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), subtitle I, establish the FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

The FAA is promulgating this rule under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

This regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, from conducting flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the significant safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil flight operations in that airspace, as described in the preamble to this final rule.

Section 553(b)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Also, section 553(d) permits agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to issue rules with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and the delayed effective date because they would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Providing notice and the opportunity for the public to comment here would be impracticable. The FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, need to include appropriate boundaries that reflect the agency's current understanding of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to protect the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without over-restricting or under-restricting U.S. operators' routing options. However, the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace managed by other countries with respect to safety of flight is fluid in circumstances involving fighting, violent extremist and militant activity, or periods of heightened tensions, particularly where weapons capable of targeting or otherwise negatively affecting U.S. civil aviation are or may be present. This fluidity, and the potential for rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation, significantly limits how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition the FAA can usefully assess the risk environment. The delay that would be occasioned by providing an opportunity to comment on this action would significantly increase the risk that the resulting final action would not accurately reflect the current risks to U.S. civil aviation associated with the situation and thus would not establish boundaries for the flight prohibition commensurate with those risks.

While the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the boundaries of the area in which unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation existed might change due to: evolving military or political circumstances; violent extremist and militant group activity; the introduction, removal, or repositioning of more advanced anti-aircraft weapon systems; or other factors. As a result, if the situation improved while the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule the FAA finalized might be over-restrictive, unnecessarily limiting U.S. operators' routing options and potentially causing them to incur unnecessary additional fuel and operations-related costs, as well as potentially causing passengers to incur unnecessarily some costs attributed to their time. Conversely, if the situation deteriorated while the FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule the FAA finalized might be under-restrictive, allowing U.S. civil aviation to continue operating in areas where unacceptable risks to their safety had developed. Such an outcome would endanger the safety of these aircraft, as well as their passengers and crews, exposing them to unacceptable risks of death, injury, and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).

Alternatively, if the FAA made changes to the area in which U.S. civil aviation operations would be prohibited between a notice of proposed rulemaking and a final rule due to changed conditions, the version of the rule the public commented on would no longer reflect the FAA's current assessment of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation.

In addition, seeking comment would be contrary to the public interest because some of the rational basis for the rulemaking is based upon classified information and controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release. In order to meaningfully provide comment on a proposal, the public would need access to the basis for the agency's decision-making, which the FAA cannot provide. Disclosing classified or controlled unclassified information in order to seek meaningful comment on the proposal would harm the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA meaningfully seeking comment on the proposal is contrary to the public interest.

Therefore, providing notice and the opportunity for comment would be impracticable as it would hinder the FAA's ability to maintain appropriate flight prohibitions based on up-to-date risk assessments of the risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace managed by other countries, and contrary to the public interest, as the FAA cannot protect classified and controlled unclassified information and meaningfully seek public comment.

For the same reasons discussed above, the potential safety impacts and the need for prompt action on up-to-date information that is not public would make delaying the effective date impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

On December 30, 2020, the FAA amended SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, to extend the expiration date of the flight prohibition for U.S. operators and airmen in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) from December 30, 2020, to December 30, 2023. 1 In issuing the 2020 final rule, the FAA determined the situation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) remained hazardous for U.S. civil aviation due to a variety of aviation safety risks associated with the ongoing conflict in Syria. 2

In 2020, the FAA determined the presence of third parties conducting independent military operations in Syria against pro-Assad regime forces, opposition groups, and violent extremist elements presented an unacceptable level of risk to U.S. civil aviation operations. Third-party airstrikes in Syria often resulted in Syrian military air defense responses. Syrian authorities did not adequately de-conflict these air defense activities, which included indiscriminate surface-to-air missile (SAM) fire, with civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), including, but not limited to, civil flight operations in close proximity to international airports in Syria. In late February 2020, Syrian air defense activities forced a commercial Cham Wings Airbus 320 passenger flight on final approach to Damascus International Airport (ICAO code: OSDI) to divert to an alternate airfield in Syria.

The lack of de-confliction of Syrian air defense activity with civil air traffic was just one of the risks to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) emanating from third-party involvement in Syria. Russia, Iran, and the Lebanese terrorist organization, Hizballah, all of which are Syrian regime allies, continued to conduct military operations in Syria and had deployed significant air defense and electronic warfare capabilities, including Global Positioning System (GPS) jammers, which presented a risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). In March 2020, Russian, Turkish, and Syrian forces clashed in Idlib Province. During these clashes, fighter aircraft and possible SAMs shot down several manned and unmanned aircraft.

In addition to the hazards associated with third-party involvement in the Syrian conflict, violent extremist threats to civil aviation safety existed in Syria. Terrorist groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) and al-Qaida-aligned entities, possessed or had access to a wide array of anti-aircraft weapons that posed a risk to civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Anti-regime forces, violent extremists, and militants had successfully shot down multiple military aircraft using man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) during the Syrian conflict. Additionally, various elements had successfully targeted military aircraft using advanced anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). ATGMs primarily pose a risk to civil aircraft operating near, or parked at, an airport. Finally, various groups had employed unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to surveil and attack Syrian and Syrian-allied fielded forces and airfields.

The FAA has determined the enduring complex conflict in Syria continues to present an unacceptable level of risk for U.S. civil aviation safety in the entirety of the Damascus FIR (OSTT) at all altitudes. Various third parties, including but not limited to Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel, continue to conduct uncoordinated military operations in Syria, resulting in various risks to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Such military operations include tactical crewed aircraft and UAS intelligence collection and strike operations, electronic warfare operations, indirect fire attacks, missiles, and potential anti-aircraft weapons use that may not be de-conflicted adequately with civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).

Recent third-party military operations have resulted in damage and operational disruptions at Damascus International Airport (ICAO code: OSDI) and Aleppo International Airport (ICAO code: OSAP). In mid October 2023, third party attacks resulted in cratering of the runways at both Damascus International Airport (OSDI) and at Aleppo International Airport (OSAP) resulting in operational disruptions and at least one civil aircraft changing its routing out of Syrian airspace. Previous attacks on Syrian airports had occurred in early January 2023, third-party attacks in Damascus caused damage and operational disruptions at Damascus International Airport (OSDI). Third-party airstrikes also had targeted Damascus International Airport (OSDI) in June and September 2022. In March 2023 and in early May 2023, third-party airstrikes on Aleppo International Airport (OSAP) occurred. The early May 2023 airstrikes against military targets at the airport resulted in a temporary shutdown of airport operations. Past Syrian air defense responses to third-party missile attacks and airstrikes in Syria have included indiscriminate surface-to-air missile (SAM) fire not adequately de-conflicted with civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Additionally, Russia, Iran, and the Lebanese terrorist organization Hizballah, have deployed significant air defense and electronic warfare capabilities in Syria, including GPS jammers, which also may not be de-conflicted adequately with civil aviation operations, further contributing to the inadvertent risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). The FAA remains concerned about the potential for inadvertent damage to or destruction of civil aircraft operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and while on the ground at or near targeted locations in Syria.

In addition to the continued hazards associated with third-party involvement in the Syrian conflict, violent extremist threats to civil aviation safety continue to exist in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). Anti-regime forces, violent extremists, and militants have successfully shot down multiple crewed military aircraft using man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) during the Syrian conflict, as well as multiple UAS. In addition, in early 2023, Iranian-aligned militia groups (IAMGs) increased their targeting of U.S. forces in Syria with rockets and weaponized UAS, as demonstrated by a January 2023 UAS attack on U.S. interests at Al-Tanf and a March 2023 UAS attack on U.S. forces located in northeastern Syria. UAS attack operations present increased safety-of-flight risks to civil aircraft operating at low altitudes in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and at targeted locations in Syria.

Open-source reporting also indicates that Iran has discussed deploying advanced air defense capabilities to Syria, and potentially proliferating these capabilities to IAMGs, to counter third-party airstrikes in Syria. If confirmed, the proliferation of advanced air defense capabilities to IAMGs would likely increase risk concerns for U.S. civil aviation in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the potential for uncoordinated SAM launches by operators who would likely lack adequate training and a complete airspace picture.

As a result of the significant, continuing, unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), the FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, from December 30, 2023, until December 30, 2028.

Further amendments to SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, might be appropriate if the risk to U.S. civil aviation safety and security changes. In this regard, the FAA will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which persons described in paragraph (a) of this rule might be able to operate safely in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).

The FAA also republishes the details concerning the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, to enable interested persons to refer to this final rule for comprehensive information about requesting relief from the FAA from the provisions of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609.

In some instances, U.S. government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described in SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or conduct other operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, to conduct such operations.

The requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government must submit the request for approval to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. 3 The FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval from anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently positioned within the organization to demonstrate that the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize aviation safety and security risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval, and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed operation(s) to commence.

The requestor must send the request to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the FAA grants the approval request. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Washington Operations Center by telephone at (202) 267-3203 or by email at 9-FAA-OverseasFlightProhibitions@faa.gov for submission instructions. The requestor must not submit its letter requesting FAA approval or related supporting documentation to the Washington Operations Center. Rather, the Washington Operation Center will refer the requestor to an appropriate staff member of the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, for further assistance.

A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) the requester expects the SFAR to cover on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality seeks FAA approval, and it must describe—

The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;

The service that the person(s) covered by the SFAR will provide;

To the extent known, the specific locations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land; and

The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations ( i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). The requestor may identify additional operators to the FAA at any time after the FAA issues its approval. Neither the operators listed in the original request, nor any operators the requestor subsequently seeks to add to the approval, may commence operations under the approval until the FAA issues them an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, for operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). The approval conditions discussed below apply to all operators, whether included in the original list or subsequently added to the approval. Requestors should contact the Washington Operations Center by telephone at (202) 267-3203 or by email at 9-FAA-OverseasFlightProhibitions@faa.gov for instructions on how to submit the names of additional operators it wishes to add to an existing approval to the FAA. The requestor must not submit the names of additional operators it wishes to add to an existing approval to the Washington Operations Center. Rather, the Washington Operation Center will refer the requestor to an appropriate staff member of the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, for further assistance.

If an approval request includes classified information or controlled unclassified information not authorized for public release, requestors may contact the Washington Operations Center for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. The Washington Operations Center's contact information appears in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of the responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificates, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:

(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:

(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT); and

(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).

(3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those the FAA might impose in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.

The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy the FAA issues under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.

If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request, and any operators the requestor subsequently adds to the approval, authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s). In addition, as stated in paragraph (3) of this section V.B., the FAA notes that it may include additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter in any OpSpec or LOA associated with a particular operator operating under this approval, as necessary in the interests of aviation safety. U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities requesting FAA approval on behalf of entities with which they have a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement should request a copy of the relevant OpSpec or LOA directly from the entity with which they have any of the foregoing types of arrangements, if desired.

Any operations not conducted under an approval the FAA issues through the approval process set forth previously may only occur in accordance with an exemption from SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those the approval process described in the previous section contemplates. To determine whether a petition for exemption from the prohibition this SFAR establishes fulfills the standard of 14 CFR 11.81, the FAA consistently finds necessary the following information:

The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation(s);

The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will provide;

The specific locations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land;

The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations ( i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases); and

The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, to establish that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.

The FAA includes, as a condition of each such exemption it issues, a release and agreement to indemnify, as described previously.

The FAA recognizes that, with the support of the U.S. Government, the governments of other countries could plan operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609. While the FAA will not permit these operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and in accordance with the order of preference set forth in paragraph (c) of SFAR No. 114, § 91.1609.

If a petition for exemption includes information that is sensitive for security reasons or proprietary information, requestors may contact the Washington Operations Center for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. The Washington Operations Center's contact information appears in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule. Requestors must not submit their petitions for exemption or related supporting documentation to the Washington Operations Center. Rather, the Washington Operation Center will refer the requestor to the appropriate staff member of the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, or the Office of Rulemaking for further assistance.

Congress authorized the FAA by statute to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. 49 U.S.C. 44701. Consistent with that mandate, the FAA is prohibiting certain persons from conducting flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations. The purpose of this rule is to operate holistically in addressing a range of hazards and needs in the Damascus FIR (OSTT). However, the FAA recognizes that certain provisions focus on unique factors. Therefore, the FAA finds that the various provisions of this final rule are severable and able to operate functionally if severed from each other. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of this final rule's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand, thus allowing the FAA to continue to fulfill its Congressionally authorized role of promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce.

Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), 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 of 1979 (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 likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (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 final rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and comment for this final rule, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not require regulatory flexibility analyses regarding impacts on small entities. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

This action extends the expiration date of the SFAR prohibiting certain flight operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT) for an additional five years due to the significant, continuing risks to U.S. civil aviation detailed in the preamble of this final rule. The FAA acknowledges this flight prohibition might result in additional costs to some U.S. operators, such as increased fuel costs and other operational-related costs. However, the FAA expects the benefits of this action to exceed the costs because it will result in the avoidance of risks of fatalities, injuries, and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Damascus FIR (OSTT).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after that section or any other law requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA concludes good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and to not delay the effective date for this rule. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and comment in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 similarly do not require regulatory flexibility analyses.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) 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 this Act, 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 its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from risks to their operations in the Damascus FIR (OSTT), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $177 million in lieu of $100 million.

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

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

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA's policy is to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation.

The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination and has placed it in the docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency has determined this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this rule will not have federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive order and will not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

Except for classified and controlled unclassified material not authorized for public release, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this rulemaking.

Those documents may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of this rule will be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the persons listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Background

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410; 28 U.S.C. 2461), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134), provided for agencies' adjustments for inflation to CMPs to ensure that CMPs continue to maintain their deterrent value and that CMPs due to the Federal Government were properly accounted for and collected.

A CMP is defined as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:

1. Is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law, or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and,

2. Is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and,

3. Is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.

On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 to improve the effectiveness of CMPs and to maintain their deterrent effect. This amendment (1) required agencies to adjust the CMP levels in effect as of November 2, 2015, with initial catch up adjustments for inflation through a final rulemaking to take effect no later than August 1, 2016; and (2) requires agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs that shall take effect not later than January 15. The Department of Commerce's 2023 adjustments for inflation to CMPs were published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2023, and the new CMP levels became effective January 15, 2023.

The Department of Commerce's 2024 adjustments for inflation to CMPs apply only to CMPs with a dollar amount, and will not apply to CMPs written as functions of violations. These 2024 adjustments for inflation apply only to those CMPs, including those whose associated violation predated such adjustment, which are assessed by the Department of Commerce after the effective date of the new CMP level.

This regulation adjusts for inflation CMPs that are provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. The actual CMP assessed for a particular violation is dependent upon a variety of factors. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Policy for the Assessment of Civil Administrative Penalties and Permit Sanctions (Penalty Policy), a compilation of NOAA internal guidelines that are used when assessing CMPs for violations for most of the statutes NOAA enforces, will be interpreted in a manner consistent with this regulation to maintain the deterrent effect of the CMPs. The CMP ranges in the Penalty Policy are intended to aid enforcement attorneys in determining the appropriate CMP to assess for a particular violation. NOAA's Penalty Policy is maintained and made available to the public on NOAA's Office of the General Counsel, Enforcement Section website at: https://www.noaa.gov/general-counsel/gc-enforcement-section.

The Department of Commerce's 2024 adjustments for inflation to CMPs set forth in this regulation were determined pursuant to the methodology prescribed by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which requires the maximum CMP, or the minimum and maximum CMP, as applicable, to be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment. The term “cost-of-living adjustment” is defined by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. For the 2024 adjustments for inflation to CMPs, the cost-of-living adjustment is the percentage for each CMP by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2023 exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2022.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), there is good cause to issue this rule without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment because it would be unnecessary. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Section 701(b)) requires agencies to make annual adjustments for inflation to CMPs notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code. Additionally, the methodology used for adjusting CMPs for inflation is given by statute, with no discretion provided to agencies regarding the substance of the adjustments for inflation to CMPs. The Department of Commerce is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the dollar amounts of adjustments for inflation to CMPs. Accordingly, prior public notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule. For the same reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866.

Because notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements: Presentation of the Major Statement in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner in Advertisements in Television and Radio Format Final Rule: Questions and Answers.” FDA is issuing this SECG as a level 2 guidance, consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). Consistent with the GGP regulation, FDA is immediately implementing the level 2 guidance and inviting public comment (§ 10.115(g)(4)).

We are issuing this guidance in accordance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28) to help small businesses understand and comply with the CCN Final Rule (88 FR 80958, November 21, 2023). The CCN Final Rule modifies 21 CFR 202.1(e)(1) to reflect the requirement in section 502(n) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(n)) that human prescription drug advertisements presented directly to consumers (DTC) in television or radio format and stating the name of the drug and its conditions of use (DTC TV/radio ads) present the major statement relating to side effects and contraindications in a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner. The CCN Final Rule also establishes standards to help ensure that this requirement is met.

This guidance addresses the content and effect of the CCN Final Rule, including identifying which drugs and advertisements are covered by the rule. The term “drugs” in this guidance refers to prescription human drug and biological products. In addition, this guidance explains when firms are expected to comply with the CCN Final Rule and how they can do so. The term “firms” in this guidance refers to manufacturers, packers, and distributors of any human prescription drug that, in any State, is distributed or offered for sale and who advertise that drug, and to all persons who they cause to issue any advertisement with respect to their human prescription drug(s), including both individuals and corporate entities.

This level 2 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on how small businesses can better understand and comply with the “Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements: Presentation of the Major Statement in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner in Advertisements in Television or Radio Format Final Rule.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR 202.1 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0686. The collections of information in 21 CFR 314.81(b)(3)(i) relating to the submission of advertisements and promotional labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the SECG at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA websites listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

On October 3, 2023, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register (84 FR 32135) proposing a waiver and extension of the project period with funding in order to enable seven projects under Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.263C to receive continuation funding for an additional 12-month period, not to exceed September 30, 2025. The proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding would allow the Department to align those dates with that of awards funded under ALNs 84.263E and 84.263F, which will each receive their final year of funding in FY 2024, and end on September 30, 2025. Due to the overlapping goals of these three programs, the Department does not believe that it would be in the public interest to run a competition for ALN 84.263C in FY 2024. Rather, aligning the projects' periods of performance end dates for ALNs 84.263C, 84.263E, and 84.263F would reduce financial and administrative burden by allowing the Department to conduct a single competition for all 84.263C, 84.263E, and 84.263F grants in FY 2025, with a five-year performance period that would run from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2030.

There are no differences between the notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding and this notice of final waiver and extension of the project period with funding, as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document.

In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding, two parties submitted comments.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed waiver and extension with funding.

An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the notice of proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding follows.

Comment: One commenter expressed strong support for the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding noting the vital importance of the Innovation Rehabilitation Training projects to the Vocational Rehabilitation field. The commenter described first-hand experience serving on an advisory board of one of the Innovative Rehabilitation Training grants and evaluating their products. The commenter noted the value of the products to the vocational rehabilitation field in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.

Discussion: The Department appreciates support for the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding for the Innovative Rehabilitation Training grants.

Change: None.

Comment: One commenter analyzed whether the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding would lead to more efficient outcomes for the Innovative Rehabilitation Training program. The commenter presented one argument that extending the project period and providing additional funding would offer the Department streamlined decision-making and grantee flexibility to ensure the delivery of comprehensive, high-quality training that effectively meets the needs of their target populations. The commenter presented a counterargument that extending the project timeline might cause grantees to delay project milestones if they know extensions are readily available, leading to inefficiencies and prolonged timelines that do not guarantee improved outcomes. The commenter recommended the Department implement appropriate oversight procedures to alleviate possible risks and safeguard the effectiveness of the waiver and extension of the project period to alleviate financial and administrative burden.

Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenter's analysis of arguments for and against the proposed notice of waiver and extension of the project period with funding and carefully considered them in its decision making. The Department will monitor grantees in accordance with applicable regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99; (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485; and (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. Additionally, the Department will assess grant performance through annual reporting and tracking of expenditures to ensure that project milestones for both the current budget period and the additional budget period are met in a timely and efficient manner, thus mitigating potential program and financial risk.

Change: None.

The Department believes aligning the projects' period of performance for ALNs 84.263C, 84.263E, and 84.263F is in the best interest of the public, as the extension reduces the financial and administrative burden by allowing the Department to conduct a single competition for 84.263C, 84.263E, and 84.263F in FY 2025, with a five-year performance period that would run from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2030.

Consequently, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, as well as the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. This waiver allows the Department to issue a one-year FY 2024 continuation award to each of the seven currently funded FY 2019 84.263C projects. Any activities carried out during the year of this continuation award must be consistent with the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantees' applications as approved in the FY 2019 competition. The requirements for continuation awards are set forth in 34 CFR 75.253.

The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension of the project period with funding would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected by the final waiver and extension of the project period with funding are the seven grants that were awarded in FY 2019 under ALN 84.263C.

The Secretary certifies that the final waiver and extension would not have a significant economic impact on these entities, because the extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

This notice of final waiver and extension of the project period with funding does not contain any information collection requirements.

These programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides final notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On October 3, 2023, the Department published in the Federal Register (88 FR 67953) a proposal to waive and extend the project period with funding in order to enable 51 projects under Assistance Listing Numbers (ALN) 84.129B, 84.129H, 84.129P, and 84.129Q to receive continuation funding for an additional 12-month period, not to exceed September 30, 2025. The proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding would allow the Department to align with the 33 ALN 84.129B grant projects funded in FY 2020 that will receive their final year of funding in FY 2024 with a September 30, 2025, performance period ending date. There are no differences between the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding and this final waiver and extension of the project period with funding.

In response to our invitation in the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding, one party submitted comments. Although the commenter expressed strong support for the proposed waiver and the extension of the project period with funding, the discussion the commenter provided relates to the Innovation Rehabilitation Training grants, which fund projects that develop training products and programs in providing rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities, rather than the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training grants, which are the subject of this notice, under which projects are funded to provide stipend support to scholars pursuing a degree or certificate in the field of rehabilitation counseling.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raise concerns not directly related to the proposed waiver and extension with funding.

The Department believes aligning the projects' period of performance for ALNs 84.129B, 84.129H, 84.129P, and 84.129Q is in the best interest of the public, as the extension reduces financial and administrative burden by allowing the Department to conduct a single competition for ALNs 84.129B, 84.129H, 84.129P and 84.129Q grants in FY 2025, with a five-year performance period that would run from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2030.

Consequently, the Secretary waives the requirements in 34 CFR 75.250, which prohibit project periods exceeding five years, as well as the requirements in 34 CFR 75.261(a) and (c)(2), which allow the extension of a project period only if the extension does not involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. This waiver allows the Department to issue a one-year FY 2024 continuation award to each of the 51 currently funded FY 2019 84.129B, 84.129H, 84.129P, and 84.129Q projects. Any activities carried out during the year of this continuation award must be consistent with the scope, goals, and objectives of the grantees' applications as approved in the FY 2019 competition. The requirements for continuation awards are set forth in 34 CFR 75.253.

The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only entities that would be affected by the proposed waiver and extension of the project period are the 51 grants that were awarded in FY 2019 under ALNs 84.129B, 84.129H, 84.129P, and 84.129Q.

The Secretary certifies that the proposed waiver and extension of the project period with funding would not have a significant economic impact on these entities because the extension of an existing project period imposes minimal compliance costs, and the activities required to support the additional year of funding would not impose additional regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal supervision.

This final waiver and extension of the project period with funding does not contain any information collection requirements.

These programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides final notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

On April 14, 2023, VA published the interim final rule in the Federal Register to allow VA adjudicators to exclude certain disabilities that would be calculated using the bilateral factor to determine the combined evaluation if, by their exclusion, a higher combined evaluation can be achieved. See 88 FR 22914. VA received one comment during the 60-day public comment period. The commenter agreed with VA's amendment but offered two considerations for how VA implements it.

The commenter expressed concern that application of the bilateral factor rule may fail to maximize benefits at the 80 percent combined evaluation level (in addition to the 90 percent level) and, in support of this assessment, cited the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in Wilburn v. McDonough, No. 22-5577, 2023 WL 5217853 (Ct. Vet. App. Aug. 15, 2023). This commenter suggested that since VA cannot guarantee that the anomaly described in the interim final rule is limited to the 90 percent to 100 percent range, VA should apply this systemic fix to all cases where the bilateral factor has been or will be considered to ensure it has complied with the duty to maximize benefits as described in Wilburn.

VA agrees that the application of the bilateral factor rule should not be limited to 90 percent combined evaluations. While the interim final rule stated that “it is only at the low 90-percent level where it may reduce a combined evaluation,” VA has since determined that there are limited scenarios where a combined 80-percent evaluation could be increased to 90 percent. Nevertheless, the regulatory text of the bilateral factor rule does not limit its application to only 90 percent combined evaluations but will apply whenever “the combined evaluation is lower than what could be achieved by not including one or more bilateral disabilities in the bilateral factor calculation.” See 38 CFR 4.26(d). Therefore, no changes to the regulatory text are necessary, and the regulatory impact analysis of this final rule reflects the additional Veterans who are eligible for increased combined evaluations based on its application to Veterans at all possible combination levels.

The commenter also suggested that VA should retroactively apply this regulatory amendment back to the original applicable effective date for each Veteran rather than the effective date of the rulemaking amending 38 CFR 4.26, which is April 16, 2023. Specifically, the commenter contended that this regulatory amendment is not a “liberalizing law” because it does not bring about a substantive change that creates a new or different entitlement as defined by Spencer v. Brown, 17 F.3d 368, 372 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Instead, the commenter asserted that this amendment merely clarifies the proper application of the bilateral factor to both more accurately account for the full disability picture and to comply with VA's duty to maximize benefits. The commenter further asserted that any instance in the past in which VA did not properly apply the bilateral factor (based on its now clarified application) and did not maximize benefits was a clear and unmistakable error; therefore, VA should correct this error back to the date it originally occurred.

VA disagrees that this regulatory amendment merely clarified the proper application of the bilateral factor rule and that previous decisions were in error. The instructions for applying “old” 38 CFR 4.26 (hereinafter referred to as the “prior bilateral factor rule”) were unambiguously clear, and no clarification was necessary for applying them. The prior bilateral factor rule stated that whenever there was a partial disability or disabilities that affected both arms, both legs, or paired skeletal muscles, those partial disabilities “will be combined as usual, and 10 percent of this value will be added ( i.e., not combined) before proceeding with further combinations, or converting to degree of disability.” The prior bilateral factor rule had no exceptions or other caveats that would have allowed claims processers to forego combining all partial disabilities, and it used the term “will,” indicating an obligation to perform. Additionally, the prior bilateral factor rule did not include any provisions to disregard its instructions if a higher evaluation could be assigned. Conversely, there are many examples in 38 CFR part 4 of provisions that allow claims processors to apply or disregard an instruction if doing so results in a higher evaluation. One such example is note 2 of 38 CFR 4.118, DC 7801, Burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are associated with underlying soft tissue damage. The note directs the claims processor to separately evaluate each affected zone of the body and then combine each evaluation. However, it also states that the claims processor may combine all of the zones into a single evaluation if that would result in a higher evaluation.

As such, this regulatory amendment was necessary to create an exception to the application of the prior bilateral factor rule. Because a regulatory amendment was necessary, retroactive application of its provisions is limited by 38 U.S.C. 5110(g), which states, in part, that “the effective date of such award or increase (pursuant to any Act or administrative issue) shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the Act or administrative issue.”

In addition to the public comment, a different organization identified the problem of certain Veterans receiving lower combined evaluations due to the application of the prior bilateral factor rule and brought it to VA's attention before VA published the interim final rule on April 14, 2023. VA informed the organization that it was aware of this problem and was drafting a regulation to address it. During that discussion, the organization also inquired about whether VA could employ equitable relief as a basis for retroactive application of this regulatory amendment. VA has determined that it cannot apply equitable relief based on the application of the prior bilateral factor rule. Equitable relief provisions under 38 U.S.C. 503 only apply in cases where VA has made an administrative error or an erroneous determination. Since VA has always interpreted the use of the prior bilateral factor rule as mandatory without exception, previous evaluations using the prior bilateral factor rule were not in error. Therefore, 38 U.S.C. 503 is not applicable. Furthermore, a clear and unmistakable error finding likewise would not be authorized with regard to claims already finally decided under the prior bilateral factor rule because VA's decision would have been in accordance with the law as it existed at the time the claim was decided.

While VA is committed to ensuring benefits are maximized to the full extent of the law, retroactive application is not authorized in this instance, as it is limited by statute and regulation. Accordingly, VA makes no changes based on this comment.

Since VA makes no changes based on the comment received, this document adopts as a final rule the interim final rule published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2023, 88 FR 22914.

VA has considered all relevant input and information contained in the comment submitted in response to the interim final rule (88 FR 22914) and, for the reasons set forth above, has concluded that no changes to the interim final rule are warranted. Accordingly, based upon the authorities and reasons set forth in the interim final rule, as supplemented by the additional reasons provided in this document in response to the comment received, VA is adopting the provisions of the interim final rule at 88 FR 22914 as a final rule without changes.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. E.O. 14094 (Executive Order on Modernizing Regulatory Review) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993 (Regulatory Planning and Review), and E.O. 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, is not applicable to this rulemaking because notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a), 604(a).

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

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Assistance Listing numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

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).

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, signed and approved this document on December 18, 2023, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The 2015 Act  1 requires each Federal agency to adjust the statutory civil monetary penalties under the laws implemented by that agency annually, to account for inflation. Section 4 of the 2015 Act requires each Federal agency to publish these adjustments by January 15 of each year. The purpose of the 2015 Act is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties by translating originally enacted statutory civil penalty amounts to today's dollars and rounding statutory civil penalties to the nearest dollar.

Since January 15, 2017, the EPA has made seven annual adjustments: (1) on January 12, 2017, effective on January 15, 2017 (82 FR 3633); (2) on January 10, 2018, effective on January 15, 2018 (83 FR 1190); (3) on February 6, 2019, effective the same day (84 FR 2056), with a subsequent correction on February 25, 2019 (84 FR 5955); (4) on January 13, 2020, effective the same day (85 FR 1751); (5) on December 23, 2020, effective the same day (85 FR 83818); (6) on January 12, 2022, effective the same day (87 FR 1676); and (7) on January 6, 2023, effective the same day (88 FR 986). This rule implements the eighth annual adjustment mandated by the 2015 Act.

The 2015 Act provides a formula for calculating the adjustments. Each statutory maximum and minimum  2 civil monetary penalty, as currently adjusted, is multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier, which is the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October 2023 exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 2022. 3

With this rule, the new statutory maximum and minimum penalty levels listed in the third column of Table 1 of 40 CFR 19.4 will apply to all civil monetary penalties assessed on or after December 27, 2023, for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, the date the 2015 Act was enacted. The former maximum and minimum statutory civil monetary penalty levels, which are in the fourth column of Table 1 to 40 CFR 19.4, will now apply only to violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, where the penalties were assessed on or after January 6, 2023, but before December 27, 2023. The statutory civil monetary penalty levels that apply to violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, are codified at Table 2 to 40 CFR 19.4. The fifth column of Table 1 and the seventh column of Table 2 display the statutory civil monetary penalty levels as originally enacted.

The formula for determining the cost-of-living or inflation adjustment to statutory civil monetary penalties consists of the following steps:

Step 1: The cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2024 is the percentage by which the CPI-U of October 2023 (307.671) exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 2022 (298.012), which is 1.03241. 4 Multiply 1.03241 by the current penalty amount. This is the raw adjusted penalty value.

Step 2: Round the raw adjusted penalty value. Section 5 of the 2015 Act states that any adjustment shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1. The result is the final penalty value for the year.

Pursuant to section 4 of the 2015 Act, each Federal agency is required to publish adjustments no later than January 15 each year. In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, most rules are subject to notice and comment and are effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . However, section 4(b)(2) of the 2015 Act provides that each agency shall make the annual inflation adjustments “notwithstanding section 553” of the APA. Consistent with the language of the 2015 Act, this rule is not subject to notice and an opportunity for public comment and will be effective on December 27, 2023.

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

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule merely increases the level of statutory civil monetary penalties that can be imposed in the context of a Federal civil administrative enforcement action or civil judicial case for violations of EPA-administered statutes and their implementing regulations.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Because the 2015 Act directs Federal agencies to publish this rule notwithstanding section 553 of the APA, this rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements or the RFA.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action is required by the 2015 Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. This action also imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Because the calculation of any increase is formula-driven pursuant to the 2015 Act, the EPA has no policy discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment.

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule merely reconciles the real value of current statutory civil monetary penalty levels to reflect and keep pace with the levels originally set by Congress when the statutes were enacted or amended. The calculation of the increases is formula-driven and prescribed by statute, and the EPA has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. As mandated by the 2015 Act, this rule adjusts for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalty amounts of the statutes administered by the EPA.

EPA acknowledges that the annual mandatory increase in civil penalty amounts to account for inflation may result in further deterrents of environmental violations that may trigger civil penalties. Deterring violations has the benefit of promoting the overarching purpose of environmental enforcement and may have a positive impact on the human health or environment of all populations including communities with environmental justice concerns.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA finds that the APA's notice and comment rulemaking procedures are unnecessary because the 2015 Act directs Federal agencies to publish their annual penalty inflation adjustments “notwithstanding section 553 [of the APA].”

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends title 40, chapter I, part 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This final rule corrects the numerical values of harvest specifications and resulting harvest target management measures for six species or stock complexes for 2024. The harvest policies by which these numerical values are derived were recommended by the Council at its April and June 2022 meetings and published in a proposed rule on October 14, 2022 (87 FR 62676) and final rule on December 16, 2022 (87 FR 77007). Hereafter, these proposed and final rules for the 2023-2024 harvest specifications and management measures will be referred to as the “original” proposed and final rules. In the original proposed and final rules, numerical values were miscalculated for a small subset (six species or stock complexes) of those harvest specifications and harvest target management measures regulations for 127 groundfish stocks or management units. Numerical values were either too high (increasing risk of overfishing) or too low (increasing risk of not achieving optimum yield). Specific details on the errors and corrected values for each species or stock complex are discussed in detail in the proposed rule for this action (88 FR 73810, October 27, 2023).

The harvest policies used to calculate the numerical values of the corrected harvest specifications and harvest target management measures in this rule are not revised from those described in the original proposed and final rules for the 2023-2024 harvest specifications and management measures. The Council recommended these corrections at its September 2023 meeting.

As described in the proposed rule (88 FR 73810, October 27, 2023) a few species and stock complex harvest specifications, which are numerical values of the harvestable surplus and include overfishing limits (OFLs), annual biological catch (ABCs), and ACLs, were calculated in error. Subsequent harvest target calculations that stem from the ACLs were also erroneous. This final rule corrects the numerical values of harvest specifications and applies the same sharing agreements to corrected ACLs to recalculate harvest targets. The OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs in this rule are based on the best available biological data, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and technical methods used to calculate stock biomass and apportion that biomass within the allocation structure of the PCGFMP. This rule corrects errors in the original proposed and final rules for the 2023-2024 harvest specifications and management measures, as recommended by the Council at its September 7-14, 2023 meeting.

Due to the timing of being made aware of these mistakes, and that the 2023 fishing season was more than 75 percent complete by the time the Council considered this issue at its September 2023 meeting, we are only implementing corrections for 2024. This action includes correctly calculated numerical values for 2024 that are representative of the Council-recommended harvest control rules and that incorporate fishery and other scientific information that was inadvertently omitted. This action does not revise static numerical values deducted from the ACLs, such as set-asides for tribal fisheries or scientific research, except for sablefish north as described in the proposed rule (88 FR 73810, October 27, 2023). All other deductions from the ACLs remain the same as those described in the original proposed rule.

The Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) document for 2022, includes a detailed description of the scientific basis for all of the Council's Science and Statistical Committee-recommended OFLs implemented in this rule, and is available at the Council's website, https://www.pcouncil.org.

For all species described in the proposed rule (88 FR 73810, October 27, 2023), revised 2024 OFLs, ABCs, ACLs and fishery harvest guidelines are revised at table 2a to subpart C, and in some cases other necessary adjustments to numerical harvest target management measures in footnotes to that table are also revised. For all species described below, except sablefish north, 2024 trawl or non-trawl allocations are revised at table 2b to subpart C. Also, for all species described in the proposed rule, 2024 shorebased IFQ allocations are revised at § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D). Any additional species-specific regulatory changes are described in the proposed rule (88 FR 73810, October 27, 2023).

NMFS is correcting the harvest specifications and harvest targets for six species and complexes for 2024 as described in the proposed rule (88 FR 73810, October 27, 2023) and as summarized in table 1. The 2024 fishing season begins on January 1, 2024.

The proposed rule had a public comment period open from October 27, 2023 through November 13, 2023 and received no public comments.

There are no changes from the proposed rule.

Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the PCGFMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

The errors were discovered in August 2023 and the recommendations from the Council to correct these errors were transmitted to NMFS on September 20, 2023. NMFS immediately prepared and published a proposed rule with a comment period open from the date of publication on October 27, 2023 through November 13, 2023, the final rule was submitted to DOC OGC for review and clearance on December 12, 2023, and the errors need to be corrected by the start of the fishing year on January 1, 2024. This timeline necessitates that NMFS waive the 30-day delay in effective date of this final rule so that the corrected, calculated values can be in effect by the start of the fishing year. Failure to implement the revised harvest specifications as soon as possible leaves harvest specifications in place that are inconsistent with the best scientific information available and the Council's recommended harvest policies and would cause unnecessary restrictions to industry.

Therefore, NMFS finds that waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness is warranted under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because delaying the effective date on these corrective measures beyond January 1, 2024 to allow for a 30-day delay in effectiveness will restrict fisheries by delaying the issuance of some 2024 quota pounds for the subject species and stock complexes. If the 2024 quotas calculated and released by NMFS based on the corrected 2024 harvest specifications in this rule are delayed, shareholders for those quotas effectively receive zero pounds for the start of the year and will be unable to begin fishing. Making this final rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register would relieve restrictions on the amounts of quota pounds that can be issued (and potentially fished) at the start of the fishing year. Therefore, NMFS finds reason to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Additionally, a 30-day delay in effectiveness would confuse the industry as to what quota pounds NMFS will issue to holders of quota share for 2024. This could negatively impact vessels because they could end up planning fishing operations under two different quota pound scenarios for 2024. Failure to implement the revised harvest specifications by the start of the fishing year on January 1, 2024 will keep harvest specifications in place that were not calculated to be consistent with harvest policies adopted by the Council and NMFS, and will cause confusion for the regulated public. This outcome runs contrary to the public interest.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this final rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the PCGFMP. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. This rule revises the numerical values of the sablefish north ACL to correctly apply the harvest control rules recommended by the Council. As a result, the regulations that implement the long-term allocation and sharing agreements for sablefish north in the PCGFMP, including the numerical calculation of the 10 percent tribal share, must be recalculated and revised in this rule. No other tribal management measures are revised in this rule. The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50 direct NMFS to develop tribal allocations and regulations in consultation with the affected tribes. In this instance, no change to harvest policies was proposed, and therefore additional tribal consultation was not required and none was conducted.

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

NMFS prepared documentation for the original proposed and final rules, which address the statutory requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The full suite of alternatives analyzed by the Council can be found on the Council's website at https://www.pcouncil.org. NMFS addressed the statutory requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act through preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). NMFS prepared an EIS for the 2015-2016 biennial harvest specifications and management measures and is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and tiered environmental analyses (EA) every biennium since then. This EIS and subsequent EAs examined the harvest specifications and management measures for 2015-2016 and 10-year projections for routinely adjusted harvest specifications and management measures. The 10-year projections evaluated the impacts of the ongoing implementation of harvest specifications and management measures and to evaluate the impacts of the routine adjustments that are the main component of each biennial cycle. This final rule corrects the numerical values that result from the application of best scientific information available and default harvest control rules analyzed in that EIS. There are no environmental effects expected from this rule beyond those evaluated in the EIS and the Environmental Assessment for the 2023-2024 harvest specifications and management measures. The harvest levels for all six species or complexes have not been fully attained in recent years, so minor adjustments to the ACLs implemented in this rule are likely to result in no discernable difference to the fishery or communities.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the 2023-2024 harvest specifications and management measures in the original proposed and final rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule implements the proposed rule unchanged, making minor, corrective adjustments to harvest specifications and related allocations and harvest targets that are unlikely to make any appreciable difference to the expected harvests in this mixed-stock fishery because the six species and complexes with corrected numerical values are not constraining access to co-occurring species. This action affects only a small number of species, and in a mixed stock fishery the affected entities for these few species cannot be differentiated from those described in the original proposed rule. The same small entities identified in the original proposed rule are the same parties that would be subject to the minor regulatory corrections in this rule. Additional information about the affected entities and expected impacts, in the context of the entire fishery and all species, can be found in the original proposed rule (87 FR 62676, October, 14, 2022). No environmental or socioeconomic impacts are expected from the changes in this rule, nor does the action diverge from the harvest policies considered in that certification. The corrections in this final rule do not change the overall framework and management measures from the original proposed and final rules and would affect large and small entities similarly. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

This rule contains no new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NOAA amends 50 CFR part 660 as follows:

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

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 4,579 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 111 mt, as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher/processors using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 462 mt, as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The 2023 Pacific cod TAC specified for catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 738 mt, as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that catcher vessels using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 395 mt of the 2023 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(12)(i)(B)( 4 ).

Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(12)(ii)(B), NMFS apportions 395 mt of Pacific cod from catcher vessels using trawl gear to the annual amounts specified for vessels using jig gear, catcher/processors using trawl gear, and catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using hook-and-line gear.

The harvest specifications for 2023 Pacific cod included in the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023) is revised as follows: 4,184 mt to catcher vessels using trawl gear, 246 mt to vessels using jig gear, 597 mt to catcher/processors using trawl gear, and 863 mt to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet (15.2 m) length overall using hook-and-line gear.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would allow for harvests that exceed the originally specified apportionment of the Pacific cod TAC. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 20, 2023.

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