Under section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which is adopted by reference in section 105 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 207(a)(1) of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), and section 104(a)(1) of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), and implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 29 CFR 1601.30(a), every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and joint labor-management committee controlling an apprenticeship or other training program covered by Title VII, ADA, GINA, or PWFA, must post notices describing the pertinent provisions of these laws. Covered entities must post such notices in prominent and accessible places where they customarily maintain notices to employees, applicants, and members. 29 CFR 1601.30(a). Failure to comply with this posting requirement is subject to a monetary penalty. 29 CFR 1601.30(b).

Section 5(b) of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), 1 which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, requires the EEOC to annually adjust the amount of the penalty for non-compliance. Under the 2015 Act, the EEOC has no discretion over whether or how to calculate this inflationary adjustment. In accordance with section 6 of the 2015 Act, the EEOC will apply the adjusted penalty only to those assessed after the effective date of the adjustment.

The adjustment set forth in this final rule follows guidance under the 2015 Act from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  2 and is calculated by comparing the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for October 2022 with the CPI-U for October 2023, resulting in an inflation adjustment factor of 1.03241. The inflation adjustment factor (1.03241) was multiplied by the most recent civil penalty amount ($659) to calculate the inflation-adjusted penalty level ($680.35819), which is then rounded to the nearest dollar ($680). Accordingly, the Commission is now adjusting the maximum penalty per violation specified in 29 CFR 1601.30(b) from $659 to $680.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides an exception to the notice and comment procedures where an agency finds good cause for dispensing with such procedures, on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). The Commission finds that this rule meets the exception because the 2015 Act requires an inflationary adjustment to the civil monetary penalty, it prescribes the formula for calculating the adjustment to the penalty, and it provides the Commission with no discretion in determining the amount of the published adjustment. Accordingly, the Commission is issuing this revised regulation as a final rule without notice and comment.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as that term is defined in Executive Order 12866. The inflationary adjustment's cumulative impact on the violations found each year falls well below the $200 million threshold for significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, as revised by E.O. 14094, and it otherwise fails to meet the definition of a significant regulatory action.

This final rule contains no new information collection requirements, and therefore, will create no new paperwork burdens or modifications to existing burdens that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) only requires a regulatory flexibility analysis when the APA requires notice and comment procedures, or the agency otherwise issues such a notice. As stated above, notice and comment is neither required nor being used for this rule. Accordingly, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501-1571).

This regulation is a rule subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801-808), but is not a “major” rule that cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . Therefore, the EEOC will submit this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the effective date of the rule.

Accordingly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1601 as follows:

On October 9, 2020, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register , proposing amendments to its procedural rules governing the conciliation process (85 FR 64079). The Commission published the final rule, titled “Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures,” in the Federal Register on January 14, 2021 (86 FR 2974) (“Final Rule”). The Final Rule outlined the information that the Commission must provide when undertaking conciliation efforts for charges alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The Final Rule became effective on February 16, 2021.

On May 19, 2021, the United States Senate passed a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) disapproving the Final Rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ). The United States House of Representatives passed S.J. Res. 13 on June 24, 2021. The President signed the joint resolution into law as Public Law 117-22 on June 30, 2021. Under Public Law 117-22 and by operation of the CRA, the Final Rule has no force or effect. Accordingly, the Commission is hereby removing the Final Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

This action is not an exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the Commission is not “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule” under 5 U.S.C. 551(5). Rather, the Commission is effectuating a change to the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect what congressional and presidential action already has accomplished. Accordingly, the Commission is not soliciting comments on this action, nor is it delaying the effective date.

For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ) and Public Law 117-22, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR parts 1601 and 1626 as follows:

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

On November 4, 2010, OFAC issued the North Korea Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 510 (75 FR 67912, November 4, 2010) (the “Regulations”). Since then, OFAC has amended the Regulations several times. OFAC is now amending the general license at § 510.512 of the Regulations, which authorizes certain transactions in support of specified humanitarian activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in North Korea, to broaden the activities and transactions authorized, including transactions with certain Government of North Korea entities that are necessary for the provision of services authorized by § 510.512, and make other changes. As a condition of the general license, NGOs relying on the authorization must submit a report to the U.S. Department of State no fewer than 30 days before the commencement of their activity indicating that the NGO's activities have been approved by or notified to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 1718 (2006), or that the NGO's activities do not require such an approval or notification. The U.S. Department of State may notify NGOs within the two-week period following submission of the report to inform them that their activities are not authorized by the NGO general license.

Additionally, this rule adds three new general licenses to the Regulations. Section 510.520 authorizes transactions incident to the exportation or reexportation to North Korea of items (commodities, software, or technology) subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730 through 774 (EAR), that have been licensed or otherwise authorized by the U.S. Department of Commerce under the EAR, including on a “No License Required” (NLR) basis due to the availability of an EAR license exception. Section 510.521 authorizes the provision of certain agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices (excluding “luxury goods” as described in 15 CFR 746.4(b)(1)) that are not subject to the EAR to North Korea. Section 510.522 authorizes U.S. news reporting organizations and their employees to engage in certain journalistic activities in North Korea, which OFAC authorizes via specific license. Finally, this rule corrects a typographic error in the authority citation.

Because this amendment of the Regulations involves a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC amends 31 CFR part 510 as follows:

The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) is establishing, amending, and updating its current list of recurring special local regulations codified under 33 CFR 100.801 in Table no. 1, for the COTP Ohio Valley zone.

On December 13, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Sector Ohio Valley Annual and Recurring Special Local Regulations Update (86 FR 69602). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to those recurring regulated areas. During the comment period that ended January 12, 2024, no comments were received. A detailed description of the changes is provided in the proposed rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Coast Guard is amending and updating the special local regulations under 33 CFR part 100 to include the most up to date list of recurring special local regulations for events held on or around navigable waters within the Sector Ohio Valley AOR. These events include marine parades, boat races, swim events, and others. The current list under 33 CFR 100.801 requires amending to provide new information on existing special local regulations, include new special local regulations expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove special local regulations that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new special local regulation, amendment, or removal of an existing special local regulation creates unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This rulemaking reduces administrative overhead and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring special local regulations.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published December 13th, 2023. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule amends and updates part 100 of 33 CFR by revising the current table for Sector Ohio Valley, and by adding four new recurring special local regulations, removing two special local regulations, and amending twenty-seven special local regulations as described in the NPRM. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterway through the safety zone will only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP, or designated representative, has deemed it safe to do so or at the completion of the event.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be minimal, and therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This rule establishes special local regulations limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 100 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this rulemaking will not be significant because these special local regulations are limited in scope and duration. Deviation from the special local regulations established through this rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners will inform the community of these special local regulations so that they may plan accordingly for these short restrictions on transit. Vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative to enter the restricted areas.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 00 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of special local regulations related to marine event permits for marine parades, regattas, and other marine events. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L(61) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for the Record supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 for the security zone locations identified in paragraph (a)(6) from 9 a.m. on March 7, 2024, to 2 a.m. on March 8, 2024. This action is being taken to protect government officials, mitigate potential terrorist acts and incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety and security immediately before, during, and after the U.S. President's State of the Union Address before a Joint Session of Congress. Our regulations for the Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and adjacent waters; Washington, DC, § 165.508(a)(6), specifies the location for this security zone as an area that includes all navigable waters described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), which includes Zones 1, 2, and 3.

• Security Zone 1, paragraph (a)(1); all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the Francis Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, at mile 113, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, at 38°51′21.3″ N, 077°02′00.0″ W, eastward across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, including the waters of the Boundary Channel, Pentagon Lagoon, Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, and Roaches Run.

• Security Zone 2, paragraph (a)(2); all navigable waters of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue) Bridge, at mile 2.9, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38°50′52.4″ N, 077°01′10.9″ W, including the waters of the Washington Channel.

• Security Zone 3 paragraph (a)(3); all navigable waters of the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, at 38°51′21.3″ N, 077°02′00.0″ W, eastward across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38°51′24.3″ N, 077°01′19.8″ W, thence southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38°50′52.4″ N, 077°01′10.9″ W, and bounded to the south by the Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, at mile 103.8.

During the enforcement period, as specified in § 165.508(b), entry into or remaining in these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region. Public vessels and vessels already at berth at the time the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone. All vessels underway within the security zone at the time it is implemented are to depart the zone at the time the security zone is implemented. To seek permission to transit the zone, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing this zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene patrol personnel determines the security zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to suspend enforcement and grant general permission to enter the security zone.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard identified active pollution stemming from the aground vessel ALEUTIAN STORM on February 12, 2024, and immediate action is necessary to respond to the pollution threat. It is impracticable to go through the full rulemaking process, including a reasonable comment period and consideration, because the Coast Guard must establish this emergency temporary safety zone by February 13, 2024.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment involved in pollution response operations at the vessel ALEUTIAN STORM.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Francisco (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with pollution response operations starting February 13, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 1,100-yard radius seaward of the vessel ALEUTIAN STORM at coordinates 38°19′43″ N 123°4′16.2″ W (NAD 83). This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during pollution response operations.

This rule establishes a temporary safety 1,100-yard safety zone in the navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean seaward of coordinates 38°19′43″ N 123°4′16.2″ W (NAD 83) from 11:30 a.m. on February 13, 2024, to 11:59 p.m. on February 19, 2024, or as announced by Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict vessel navigation in this area until the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) determines that the hazards associated with the pollution response operations for the vessel ALEUTIAN STORM are no longer present. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative, no vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the navigable waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than a week during hours that will prohibit entry within 1,100 yards of pollution response operations at the vessel ALEUTIAN STORM. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

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

On June 14, 2010, the Department published a final rule amending the Department's FOIA regulations in 34 CFR part 5, including § 5.40(b) (Appeals of Adverse Determinations). On January 26, 2024, we corrected that provision to strike the last sentence, which contained erroneous language. 89 FR 5097. Because the title of the corrected provision inadvertently was omitted in the amendatory instructions, we are correcting that provision to add back the original title, “Appeal requirements.”

All other information in the 2010 final rule remains the same, except for the provisions that were amended on December 12, 2019 (84 FR 67865) and January 26, 2024 (89 FR 5097).

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)).

Rulemaking is “unnecessary” in those situations in which “the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.” Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2001), quoting U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 31 (1947) and South Carolina v. Block, 558 F. Supp. 1004, 1016 (D.S.C. 1983).

There is good cause to waive rulemaking here, because rulemaking is unnecessary. The actions in this document merely correct an inadvertent deletion of an existing regulatory title and are not an exercise of the Department's discretion. Thus, the Secretary has determined that publication of a proposed rule is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR 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.

Accordingly, part 5 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

On August 21, 2023, the EPA proposed to approve Missouri's submitted section 111(d) State Plan with two accompanying state rule revisions and a SIP revision in the Federal Register (88 FR 56787). The EPA proposed to approve both the section 111(d) State Plan with two accompanying state rule revisions and SIP revision together. In this action, the EPA is finalizing approval of the revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers the St. Louis area) into Missouri's SIP. The EPA will act on the section 111(d) State Plan and the revision to 10 CSR 10-6.310 “Restriction of Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” in a separate action.

The proposed rule includes additional background information on Missouri's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rule for the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area. The Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking, includes the summary and analysis of Missouri's SIP Revision. The EPA solicited comments on the proposed approval of the submission and received one comment.

As part of this action, EPA is approving the revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490, which implements the 2016 MSW landfill EG at more stringent thresholds in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, into Missouri's SIP. EPA's approval of 10 CSR 10-5.490 is in accordance with section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51.

EPA's detailed rationale and discussion of Missouri's revisions to 10 CSR 10-5.490 can be found in the EPA TSD, located in the docket for this rulemaking.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from December 27, 2021 to February 3, 2022 and held a public hearing on January 27, 2022. The State received one comment on 10 CSR 10-5.490 concerning incorporation by reference of federal requirements and modified the rule in response.

In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened August 21, 2023 the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on September 20, 2023. During this period, EPA received one comment from an individual commenter that was supportive of EPA's proposed action.

The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's SIP revision submitted by the MoDNR on July 25, 2022 revising Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490, which incorporates requirements established in EPA's updated Emission Guidelines, into the Missouri SIP replacing the prior SIP-approved version of the state rule. EPA amends 40 CFR part 52, subpart AA, to reflect this action.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-5.490, state effective date July 30, 2022, which regulates municipal solid waste landfills in the St. Louis area as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0199, at https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 16, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

The NPL, created under section 105 of CERCLA, as amended, is an appendix of the NCP. The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Partial deletion of sites is in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and are consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List, 60 FR 55466, (November 1, 1995). The sites to be deleted are listed in Table 1, including docket information containing reference documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete. The NCP permits activities to occur at a deleted site, or that media or parcel of a partially deleted site, including operation and maintenance of the remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These activities for the site are entered in Table 1 in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, if applicable, under Footnote such that; 1 = site has continued operation and maintenance of the remedy, 2 = site receives continued monitoring, and 3 = site five-year reviews are conducted. As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site or portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

Information concerning the sites to be deleted and partially deleted from the NPL, and the proposed rule for the deletion and partial deletion of the sites, are included in Table 2.

For the sites proposed for deletion, the closing date for comments in the proposed rule was September 15, 2023. The EPA received no public comments for any of the three sites in this final rule. The deletion criteria for the Site have been met, and detailed information is available on https://www.regulations.gov, and in the appropriate Regional Records Centers listed in the ADDRESSES .

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

For reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 300 as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you were a manufacturer or importer of a polymer under the terms of the polymer exemption in 2023. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 325).

• Petroleum and Coal Products (NAICS code 324).

• Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (NAICS code 424).

This list details the types of entities that EPA is aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 723.250. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is promulgating this rule pursuant to its authority in TSCA section 5 (15 U.S.C. 2604). In addition, section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that an agency may issue a final rule without a prior proposal if it finds for good cause that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

EPA is extending the reporting deadline for polymer exemption reports under 40 CFR 723.250 for this year for exemption reports and accompanying claims from January 31 to March 31. EPA believes this extension will provide reporters with sufficient time to submit information using the electronic reporting tool and for EPA to fix any unanticipated glitches that may arise with the use of the new tool.

Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), EPA has determined that there is good cause for extending the reporting deadline for 2024 without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. EPA encountered technical issues when launching a new polymer exemption electronic reporting tool and the time to fix those issues took longer than expected. As a result, it was not possible for manufacturers to submit their required reports and accompanying claims electronically until January 29, 2024, three business days before the January 31st regulatory due date for 2024. EPA determines that there is good cause to take this action without a prior proposal because it would be contrary to the public interest to retain the deadline of January 31 for the 2024 reports, where EPA's electronic systems were not ready and available for use by regulated entities to allow them to comply with the electronic reporting requirements of the rule before the submission deadline of January 31, 2024.

Moreover, EPA previously provided notice that if technical issues with electronic reporting of polymer exemption reports occurred, it would make appropriate accommodations such as extending reporting deadlines. The issue was discussed in the preamble to the final rule establishing the electronic reporting deadline in question (88 FR 37155, June 7, 2023 (FRL-8223-02-OCSPP)), which became effective on August 7, 2023, and required the use of a new electronic reporting tool for submitting annual polymer exemption reports and accompanying claims. That rule amended the regulations in 40 CFR 723.250(f) to state, “. . . The report and accompanying claims must be submitted via CDX ( https://cdx.epa.gov/ ), using the TSCA Section 5 Notices and Supports—ePMN application.” In that rule, EPA responded to several commenters that expressed concern over reliance on electronic reporting, citing past incidences of technical difficulties with providing electronic submissions via CDX. Specifically, EPA responded in that final rule that it did not expect issues with electronic reporting of polymer exemption reports, but if such issues did occur the Agency would continue its practice of promptly addressing problems and, “. . . making appropriate accommodations (such as extending reporting deadlines)” (88 FR 37155, June 7, 2023 (FRL-8223-02-OCSPP)). EPA did not anticipate the technical issues it had with launching the tool and expected the new reporting tool to be fully functional well ahead of the January 31st reporting deadline. Unfortunately, the tool only became functional three business days before the January 31, 2024, deadline. As EPA had already acknowledged that it could extend reporting deadlines if technical issues with the reporting tool arose, providing further notice and public procedure would serve no purpose and is unnecessary.

APA section 553(d) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)), in turn, allows an agency to make a rule immediately effective “for good cause found and published with the rule.” For the reasons discussed in this unit, EPA believes that there is good cause to make this amendment to codify the extension to the 2024 reporting deadline effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Extending the reporting deadline for 2024 is beneficial to regulated entities that need to comply with the regulations because it provides them with more time to complete the submission using the new electronic reporting tool. This final rule has no adverse impact and does not otherwise alter the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in the rule.

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

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

This action does not contain any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing new chemical regulations under OMB Control No. 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188.14), which was updated with the CBI revisions and electronic submission approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0223 (EPA ICR No. 2707.02). This action only delays the reporting deadline for 2024 and does not otherwise change any of the information collection activities.

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This final rule action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption.

This action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 et seq.

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

This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health does not apply.

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

This action does not involve technical standards. As such, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to the potential for disproportionate impacts on non-white and low-income populations in accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023).

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in Unit I.D., including the basis for that finding.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

Executive Order (E.O.) 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, dated January 20, 2021, establishes a policy “to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.”

The Federal Government must be a model for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, where all employees are treated with dignity and respect. While GSA is not aware of any specific instances where language in the FTR has been used to discriminate against an employee seeking reimbursement for travel or relocation expenses, GSA believes it is important to prevent any potential discrimination or the appearance of discrimination. Therefore, GSA has undertaken an extensive review of the FTR and is updating all instances where language used to identify individuals is not as inclusive as it could be.

Consistent with the American Psychological Association (APA) Style Guide, 7th Edition, Publication Manual Section 5.5 guidance on “Gender and Pronoun Usage”, GSA is replacing gender-specific pronouns, such as he, she, his, or her with more inclusive and respectful terminology to all segments of society. Other terms that do not use gender-specific language, such as employee, traveler, sibling, child, and parent have also been used as appropriate.

In developing this final rule, GSA is waiving notice of proposed rulemaking, public comment, and effective date procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 (APA). The APA provides an exception to those procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 553(d)(3). Here, GSA has determined that_good cause exists for dispensing with these procedures_because they are unnecessary. The removal of gender-specific language is a grammatical, technical amendment that does not change policy or require the expenditure of agency funds. It instead makes clear that the FTR should not be interpreted to condone potential gender discrimination or the appearance of gender discrimination, even if GSA is unaware of the FTR's gendered language being used to discriminate against an employee. Therefore, this rule is not subject to notice, an opportunity for public comment, or a delayed effective date, and will be final and effective upon publication.

This final rule is technical in nature and does not significantly change any definition, operation or interpretation of the FTR.

No FTR benefit has been increased or decreased in any way by these technical changes to the FTR.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ( Regulatory Planning and Review ) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 ( Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review ) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 14094 ( Modernizing Regulatory Review ) amends section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 and supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review established in E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, it was not reviewed under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866.

Title II, subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, unless excepted, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This rule is excepted from CRA reporting requirements prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 as it relates to agency management or personnel under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B).

This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. This final rule is also exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) because it applies to agency management or personnel. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not performed.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FTR do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA amends 41 CFR parts 300-3, 301-10, 301-31, 301-50, 301-51, 301-70 through 301-76, Appendix C to Chapter 301, 302-1 through 302-9, 302-11, 302-12, 302-14 through 302-17, 303-70, 304-2, 304-3, and 304-5 as set forth below:

Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as those on registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and other relevant sources, and publish in the Federal Register any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(C)).

The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.

The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock, while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2).

Tier 1: Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock across all fisheries is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock will be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) for which total annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier of analysis (Tier 2) to determine their classification.

Tier 2: Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock.

Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level ( i.e., a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995).

Because fisheries are classified on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one category for one marine mammal stock and another category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically classified on the LOF at its highest level of classification ( e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II). Stocks driving a fishery's classification are denoted with a superscript “1” in tables 1 and 2.

The tier analysis requires a minimum amount of data, and NMFS does not have sufficient data to perform a tier analysis on certain fisheries. Therefore, NMFS has classified certain fisheries by analogy to other fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of a Category II fishery. In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental mortality or serious injury is “occasional” by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fishermen reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (50 CFR 229.2).

Further, eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified on the LOF are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2).

The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. The list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured includes “serious” and “non-serious” documented injuries as described later in the List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean and List of Species and/or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean sections. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs and injury determination reports. SARs are brief reports summarizing the status of each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Information includes the identity and geographic range of the stock, population statistics related to abundance, trend, and annual productivity, notable habitat concerns, and estimates of human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) by source. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The best available scientific information used in the SARs and reviewed for the 2024 LOF generally summarizes data from 2016-2020. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports ( i.e., MMPA mortality/injury reports), and anecdotal reports from that time period. In some cases, more recent information may be available and used in the LOF.

For fisheries with observer coverage, species or stocks are generally removed from the list of marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured if no interactions are documented in the 5-year timeframe summarized in that year's LOF. For fisheries with no observer coverage and for observed fisheries with evidence indicating that undocumented interactions may be occurring ( e.g., fishery has low observer coverage and stranding network data include evidence of fisheries interactions that cannot be attributed to a specific fishery), species and stocks may be retained for longer than 5 years. For these fisheries, NMFS will review the other sources of information listed above and use its discretion to decide when it is appropriate to remove a species or stock.

The best available information on the level of observer coverage and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions is presented in the SARs. Data obtained from the observer program and observer coverage levels are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each Pacific and Alaska SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF, including the observer coverage in those fisheries. For Atlantic fisheries, this information can be found in the LOF Fishery Fact Sheets. The SARs do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries, because under the MMPA, Category III fisheries are not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Fishery information presented in the SARs' appendices and other resources referenced during the tier analysis may include: (1) the level of observer coverage; (2) the target species; (3) the levels of fishing effort; spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort; (4) the characteristics of fishing gear and operations; (5) management and regulations; and (6) interactions with marine mammals. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region. Information on observer coverage levels in Category I, II, and III fisheries can be found in the fishery fact sheets on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables. Additional information on observer programs in commercial fisheries can be found on the NMFS National Observer Program's website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/national-observer-program.

The LOF includes three tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by Category. Table 1 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska), table 2 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, and table 3 lists all U.S. authorized commercial fisheries on the high seas. A fourth table, table 4, lists all commercial fisheries managed under applicable TRPs or take reduction teams (TRT).

Beginning with the 2009 LOF, NMFS includes high seas fisheries in table 3 of the LOF, along with the number of valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in each fishery. As of 2004, NMFS issues HSFCA permits only for high seas fisheries analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The authorized high seas fisheries are broad in scope and encompass multiple specific fisheries identified by gear type. For the purposes of the LOF, the high seas fisheries are subdivided based on gear type ( e.g., trawl, longline, purse seine, gillnet, troll, etc. ) to provide more detail on composition of effort within these fisheries. Many fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in tables 1 and 2 and those in table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery, but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters (listed in table 1 or 2). NMFS designates those fisheries in tables 1, 2, and 3 with an asterisk (*) after the fishery's name. The number of HSFCA permits listed in table 3 for the high seas components of these fisheries operating in U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort not accounted for in tables 1 and 2. Many vessels/participants holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in tables 1 and 2.

HSFCA permits are valid for 5 years, during which time Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) can change. Therefore, some vessels/participants may possess valid HSFCA permits without the ability to fish under those permits because they were issued for a gear type that is no longer authorized under the most current FMP. For this reason, the number of HSFCA permits displayed in table 3 is likely higher than the actual U.S. fishing effort on the high seas. For more information on how NMFS classifies high seas fisheries on the LOF, see the preamble text in the final 2009 LOF (73 FR 73032, December 1, 2008). Additional information about HSFCA permits can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/high-seas-fishing-permits.

Starting with the 2010 LOF, NMFS developed summary documents, or fishery fact sheets, for each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. These fishery fact sheets provide the full history of each Category I and II fishery, including: (1) when the fishery was added to the LOF; (2) the basis for the fishery's initial classification; (3) classification changes to the fishery; (4) changes to the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery; (5) fishery gear and methods used; (6) observer coverage levels; (7) fishery management and regulation; and (8) applicable TRPs or TRTs, if any. These fishery fact sheets are updated after each final LOF and can be found under “How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III?” on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries, linked to the “List of Fisheries Summary” table. NMFS is developing similar fishery fact sheets for each Category III fishery on the LOF. However, due to the large number of Category III fisheries on the LOF and the lack of accessible and detailed information on many of these fisheries, the development of these fishery fact sheets is taking significant time to complete. NMFS began posting Category III fishery fact sheets online with the LOF for 2016.

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization to lawfully take marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. The take of threatened or endangered marine mammals requires additional authorization. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization.

NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the MMAP, with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMAP and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials.

In the Pacific Islands, West Coast, and Alaska regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail or with their state or Federal license or permit at the time of issuance or renewal. In the Southeast Region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail automatically at the beginning of each calendar year. In the Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate electronically. The certificate can be downloaded and/or printed at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#obtaining-a-marine-mammal-authorization-certificate. Printed copies can be mailed upon request by contacting nmfs.gar.mmapcert@noaa.gov or 978-281-9120.

Vessel or gear owners who participate in fisheries in these regions and have not received authorization certificates by the beginning of the calendar year, or with renewed fishing licenses, must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Authorization certificates may also be obtained by visiting the MMAP website https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#obtaining-a-marine-mammal-authorization-certificate.

The authorization certificate, or a copy (physical or electronic), must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or, for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal license or permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries.

Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal license or permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a fishery listed on the LOF, must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed ( i.e., Category I, Category II, or Category III) within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip or, in the case of non-vessel fisheries, fishing activity. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury, and must be reported.

Mortality/injury reporting forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-authorization-program#reporting-a-death-or-injury-of-a-marine-mammal-during-commercial-fishing-operations or by contacting the appropriate regional office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). Forms may be submitted via any of the following means: (1) online using the electronic form; (2) emailed as an attachment to nmfs.mireport@noaa.gov; (3) faxed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources at 301-713-0376; or (4) mailed to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (mailing address is provided on the postage-paid form that can be printed from the web address listed above). Reporting requirements and procedures are found in 50 CFR 229.6.

Individuals participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard their vessel(s) upon request from NMFS. MMPA section 118 states that the Secretary is not required to place an observer on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized; thereby authorizing the exemption of vessels too small to safely accommodate an observer from this requirement. Observer requirements are found in 50 CFR 229.7.

Table 4 provides a list of fisheries affected by TRPs and TRTs. TRP regulations are found at 50 CFR 229.30 through 229.37. A description of each TRT and copies of each TRP can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-take-reduction-plans-and-teams. It is the responsibility of fishery participants to comply with applicable take reduction regulations.

Information regarding the LOF and the MMAP, including registration procedures and forms, current and past LOFs, descriptions of each Category I and II fishery and some Category III fisheries, observer requirements, and marine mammal mortality/injury reporting forms and submittal procedures may be obtained at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries, or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Cheryl Cross;

NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Jessica Powell;

NMFS, West Coast Region, Long Beach Office, 501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Dan Lawson;

NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Suzie Teerlink; or

NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: Elena Duke.

NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury information presented in the SARs for all fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification were warranted. The SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fishery operations and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were established by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs and to advise NMFS on marine mammal population status, trends, and stock structure, as well as on uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues.

NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding and entanglement data, observer program data, fishermen self-reports, reports to the SRGs, conference papers, FMPs, and ESA documents.

The LOF for 2024 was based on, among other things: (1) stranding data; (2) fishermen self-reports; and (3) SARs (primarily the 2022 SARs, which are based on data from 2016-2020). The SARs referenced in this LOF include: 2021 (87 FR 47385, August 3, 2022) and 2022 (88 FR 54592, August 11, 2023). The SARs are available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports-region.

NMFS received 28 comment letters on the proposed LOF for 2024 (88 FR 62748, September 13, 2023). Comments were received from 11 members of the public: (1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G); (2) California Coast Crab Association (CCCA); (3) Don't Cage Our Oceans; (4) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; (5) Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources (HI DAR); (6) Hawaii Longline Association (HLA); (7) Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR); (8) Maine Lobstermen's Association (MLA); (9) Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (SEAFA) Taylor Shellfish Company; (10) United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters (USAG); and (11) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). NMFS additionally received a joint letter from American Cetacean Society-Oregon Chapter (ACS), Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, EarthJustice, Endangered Habitats League, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Ocean Defenders Alliance, and the Resource Renewal Institute (ACS et al. ). Nine of the comment letters received were in response to NMFS request for public input on aquaculture fishery descriptions. NMFS thanks these commenters for providing information in response to our aquaculture request, and we will consider all the aquaculture information submitted in future LOFs. Responses to substantive comments are below. Comments on actions not related to the LOF are not included.

Comment 1: ADF&G, SEAFA, USAG, and two members of the public opposed the reclassification of the AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery. ADF&G, SEAFA, USAG reiterated comments provided on the draft 2022 Southeast Alaska harbor porpoise SARs (8 FR 4162, January 24, 2023). Commenters raised concerns that the AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery reclassification is based on inadequate harbor porpoise M/SI estimates and biased population size estimates in the 2022 SAR. Several commenters requested NMFS work with ADF&G to gather additional data on the harbor porpoise population, stock structure, and fisheries bycatch.

Response: NMFS appreciates the concerns raised in the comments. Comments on the 2022 SARs were addressed in the Federal Register notice for the final SARs (88 FR 54592, August 11, 2023). NMFS uses the best available scientific information to prepare the annual LOF, which includes reliance on the SARs for M/SI data. The LOF is re-evaluated annually to allow for the addition of best available information as it becomes available. NMFS continues to pursue options for future observer data to inform M/SI estimates for this fishery, and NMFS will consider data in future SARs to inform the annual LOF. Therefore, NMFS does not retain the AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery as a Category II fishery and reclassifies the AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery.

Comment 2: ADF&G commented that the proposed reclassification of the AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery may result in changes to the fishery with potential economic impacts for the industry and consumers.

Response: The requirements for Category I and II fisheries under MMPA section 118(c) are the same. The MMPA section 118(c) requirements for Category I and II fisheries are to: (1) register with NMFS through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program; (2) accommodate observers aboard vessels, upon request; and (3) comply with any applicable take reduction plans. In addition, any vessel owner or operator participating in a fishery listed on the LOF must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed ( i.e., Category I, Category II, or Category III). If NMFS takes a management action ( e.g., through the development of a TRP), then economic analyses of the effects of that TRP would be evaluated in subsequent rulemaking actions.

Comment 3: A member of the public recommends NMFS retain the superscript “1” for Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery based on the nine killer whale mortalities in the fishery in 2023. The commenter notes that NMFS has not yet released genetic information for the killer whale mortalities, but based on previous M/SI data for the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery it is likely the whale mortalities in 2023 are from the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock.

Response: NMFS agrees and retains the superscript “1” for the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whale in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery. While the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whale stock is currently not driving the Category II classification of the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery, there are past M/SI and more recent data that suggest that the M/SI is ongoing. NMFS will re-evaluate this in the next LOF cycle and adjust at that time, if necessary.

Comment 4: FWS recommends NMFS revise the Northern sea otter stock name on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured for consistency with the current stock name in the SARs. They recommend revising Northern sea otter, South central AK to Northern sea otter, Southcentral AK.

Response: NMFS agrees and revises the stock name from Northern sea otter, South central AK to Northern sea otter, Southcentral AK on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the following fisheries: (1) Category II AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet, (2) Category II AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet and (3) Category III AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet.

Comment 5: HI DAR requests NMFS revisit the classification of the Category II HI shortline fishery. The Category II HI shortline fishery was classified by analogy to the HI longline fishery in the 2010 LOF. HI DAR states that there are differences in gear composition between the HI shortline fishery and HI longline fishery that present marked differences in potential threats to marine mammals. DAR notes that shortline gear is used by the HI seamount fishery, also known as the HI offshore handline fishery, which consists of fewer than 10 vessels and not all vessels currently use the gear. HI DAR requests NMFS review new information on shortline gear including its risk to marine mammals.

Response: The HI shortline fishery is classified as Category II by analogy to the HI longline fishery based on similarities between the gears used in the fisheries. NMFS may classify fisheries by analogy to other fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause M/SI of marine mammals, or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of a Category II fishery. The HI shortline fishery lacks a dedicated observer program or an electronic monitoring component to assess the level of M/SI, or lack thereof, within the fishery. While multiple gear types are used within the HI shortline fishery, vessels may deploy shortline gear, which sets hooks in a manner consistent with longline vessels. Additionally, the fishery operates in locations that overlap with Main Hawaiian Island (MHI) insular false killer whale's range and has the potential for interactions with these animals. In addition, HI DAR did not provide specific information on differences between HI shortline and longline gear. Therefore, NMFS is not making changes to the HI shortline fishery for the 2024 LOF.

Comment 6: HLA supports removing the Hawaii stock of striped dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I HI deep-set longline fishery. They also support removing the Hawaii stock of fin whale and Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II HI shallow-set longline fishery.

Response: NMFS agrees and removes the stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the respective fisheries.

Comment 7: HLA reiterates a previous comment recommending NMFS remove the MHI insular and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) stocks of false killer whales from the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I HI deep-set longline fishery. The HI deep-set longline fishery is observed with 20 percent coverage, and there have been no documented M/SI of the MHI insular false killer whale stock in the most recent 5-year period. HLA notes that (a) the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (FKWTRP) closed the deep-set longline fishery for almost the entire range of the MHI insular stock, (b) since this change was made in 2013 there have been no false killer whale interactions in the fishery, and (c) there has never been a deep-set longline fishery M/SI in the very small area of the stocks' range where the fishery operates. They also state that no information has been presented to the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Team or the Pacific Scientific Review Group suggesting any false killer whale M/SI in the deep-set fishery can reliably be attributed to the MHI insular or NWHI stocks of false killer whales. HLA requests that NMFS remove the MHI insular and NWHI stocks of false killer whales from the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I HI deep-set longline fishery.

Response: This comment has been addressed previously (see 84 FR 22051, May 16, 2019; 85 FR 21079, April 16, 2020; 86 FR 3028, January 14, 2021; 88 FR 16899, March 21, 2023). The MHI insular stock of false killer whales have been documented via telemetry to move far enough offshore to reach longline fishing areas (Bradford et al., 2015). The MHI insular, Hawaii pelagic, and NWHI stocks have partially overlapping ranges. MHI insular false killer whales have been satellite tracked as far as 115 kilometers (km) from the MHI, while pelagic stock animals have been tracked to within 11 km of the MHI and throughout the NWHI. Thus, M/SI of false killer whales of unknown stock within the stock overlap zones must be prorated to MHI insular, pelagic, or NWHI stocks.

Annual bycatch estimates are prorated using a process outlined in detail in the SARs, which account for M/SI that occur within the MHI-pelagic or NWHI-pelagic overlap zones. As described in the 2021 SAR (Carretta et al., 2022), from 2015-2019 the mean estimated annual M/SI of false killer whales was 9.8. This results in a prorated mean estimated annual M/SI of 0.03 for the MHI insular stock and 0.1 for the NWHI stock.

MHI insular false killer whales have been documented with injuries consistent with fisheries interactions that have not been attributed to a specific fishery (Baird et al., 2014). For observed fisheries with evidence indicating that undocumented interactions may be occurring ( e.g., fishery has evidence of fisheries interactions that cannot be attributed to a specific fishery, and stranding network data include evidence of fisheries interactions that cannot be attributed to a specific fishery), stocks may be retained on the LOF for longer than 5 years. For these fisheries, NMFS will review the other sources of relevant information to determine when it is appropriate to remove a species or stock from the LOF. Therefore, NMFS retains both the MHI insular and NWHI false killer whale stocks on the list of species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I HI deep-set longline fishery.

Comment 8: ACS et al. supports NMFS reclassifying the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery based on incidental M/SI of the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale. They also state that Rmax (maximum net productivity rate) for the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale used in the 2022 SAR is inconsistent with the Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment Reports Pursuant to the 1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Response: NMFS thanks the organizations for their comment and reclassifies the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery. Comments on the draft 2022 SARs, including selection of parameters such as Rmax, were addressed in the Federal Register notice for the final SARs (88 FR 54592, August 11, 2023).

Comment 9: CCCA opposes NMFS reclassifying the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery based on incidental M/SI of the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale. They state that the reclassification is not based on the best available information since it uses M/SI data from 2016-2020. CCCA notes that in 2016, there was an unprecedented 22 humpback whale entanglements and that this increase was attributed to anomalous ocean conditions that changed the whales' migratory path. Since 2016, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife has implemented regulations to reduce entanglement risk. CCCA state that in 2021 there was one humpback whale entanglement and four in 2022 in the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery. If the more recent M/SI data are used and excludes the 2016 data, the estimated annual M/SI is below 50 percent of PBR for the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale and therefore a Category II fishery.

Response: NMFS appreciates the comments about the implementation of new regulations and measures to address entanglements in the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery following the increased entanglements in 2016. We also acknowledge the efforts of CA Department of Fish and Wildlife and other stakeholders in California to take proactive steps to reduce entanglement risks in the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery through convening the California Dungeness Crab Fishing Gear Working Group and subsequent development and implementation of the Risk Assessment and Mitigation Program. NMFS uses the best available scientific information to prepare the annual LOF, which includes relying on the SARs for M/SI data. The LOF for 2024 was based on, among other things: (1) stranding data; (2) fishermen self-reports; and (3) SARs (primarily the 2022 SARs) which are based on data from 2016-2020. As M/SI information becomes available from later years, NMFS will review classification of the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery in a future LOF. For the 2024 LOF, NMFS reclassifies the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery from a Category II to a Category I fishery.

Comment 10: ACS et al. requests NMFS add the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery based on an entanglement in 2021.

Response: The injury determination for the 2021 humpback whale entanglement in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery (Carretta et al. 2023a) was finalized after the proposed 2024 LOF published. NMFS adds the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery. NMFS will conduct the tier analysis for this M/SI in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery for the 2025 LOF.

Comment 11: ACS et al. recommends NMFS add the California experimental pot fishery targeting king and other deep water crab species to the LOF and classify the fishery by analogy as a Category II fishery. They note that the fishery uses large pot gear with vertical buoy lines in depths greater than 125 fathoms (228.6 m) off the coast of California north of Pigeon Point (south of San Francisco). ACS et al. states there was a humpback whale entanglement in this fishery in 2021 near the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

Response: Any eligible commercial fishery not specifically identified on the LOF is deemed to be a Category II fishery until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2). NMFS will consider the comments provided by ACS et al. in a future proposed LOF.

Comment 12: ACS et al. requests NMFS add the California groundfish/finfish set net fishery as a Category II fishery. They note that the 2024 LOF does not include the California groundfish/finfish set net fishery, which is managed with other types of fixed gear in the open access sector under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (Groundfish FMP).

Response: NMFS acknowledges that the use of gillnets remains an authorized gear type in areas south of 38 degrees N. lat. (50 CFR 660.330(b) and 50 CFR 660.330(b)(2)(ii)) under the Groundfish FMP. However, NMFS' review of fishing effort information, including landings and observer data, indicate that there does not appear to be any dedicated or stand-alone use of gillnets for harvesting groundfish on the West Coast that is not already associated with other Category II gillnet fisheries on the LOF. Available information suggests that some limited landings of groundfish species may occur under the open access provisions of the Groundfish FMP while vessels are participating in the Category II CA halibut/white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 inch (in) mesh) fishery in California. Therefore, gillnet fishing resulting in the harvest of species managed under the Groundfish FMP is already reflected on the LOF as Category II fishing effort.

Comment 13: ME DMR and MLA reiterate previous comments requesting that the Maine state waters trap/pot fishery be separated out from the broader Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery and classified as a separate and independent Category II fishery. Both ME DMR and MLA cite the rarity of North Atlantic right whales in Maine state waters, lack of attributed right whale entanglements in the Maine lobster fishery, the implementation of unique gear marking and additional risk reduction measures combined with an increase in North Atlantic right whale monitoring in the Gulf of Maine as the justification that the ME state waters lobster trap pot fishery is a separate and distinct fishery.

ME DMR and MLA note that state regulations require that all buoy lines in state waters and “the sliver” have a 1700-pound (lb) (771 kg) weak insertion 50 percent of the way down the vertical line, or approved 1700-lb (771 kg) breaking strength line in the top 50 percent of the vertical line. Both commenters assert that the Maine state fishery has unique gear markings that distinguishes it from rest of the Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery. In Maine state waters, fishermen must have a 36-inch (91.4 cm) purple mark in the top two fathoms of their line, another 12 inch (30.5 cm) mark midway down the line, and another 12 inch (30.5 cm) mark at the bottom of the line. Federal green marks are not allowed in Maine state waters.

ME DMR and MLA state that North Atlantic right whale monitoring efforts have increased substantially in the Gulf of Maine. Since September 2022, New England Aquarium has been conducting aerial surveys off the coast of Maine and to date, 12 surveys have been completed with no right whale sightings. In addition, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is conducting acoustic glider work in the Gulf of Maine. Data from December 2022-April 2023 and June-August 2023 had no confirmed detections of right whales and the former timeframe had only a few possible detections.

Both commenters acknowledge that Maine and Massachusetts have taken different approaches to risk reduction in their respective fisheries. They stress that Massachusetts state waters have concentrated aggregations of right whales resulting in entanglement risks during specific seasons. In contrast, right whale sightings in Maine state waters are infrequent, resulting in a low, diffuse entanglement risk coast wide during most of the year. Based on the predictable seasonal aggregations of right whales in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts used a seasonal closure as their primary risk reduction measure. While Maine, with diffuse risk, used “trawling up” as the primary risk reduction measure. Based on this, NMFS should not compare the two states' differing approaches as a basis for decision making to reclassify the Maine state lobster trap/pot fishery as a separate and distinct fishery from the broader Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery.

Response: NMFS recognizes that the state of Maine has modified their lobster trap/pot fishery in alignment with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan requirements that were finalized in 2021 (86 FR 5990, September 17, 2021), has expanded acoustic monitoring, and has recently commenced visual surveys. However, cumulatively, these efforts do not differentiate the Maine state lobster fishery as a distinct fishery. To reiterate the responses stated in previous LOFs (88 FR 16899, March 21, 2023 and 87 FR 23122, April 19, 2022), the state of Massachusetts was considered to be a unique, separate fishery because of the combination of measures that have been taken (see previous LOF: 88 FR 16899, March 21, 2023). As stated in our previous response, in making our decision, we considered the changes that the state of Massachusetts made (including gear changes that distinguish Massachusetts rope from other states, due to increased weak rope and insert requirements and increased marking frequency, amplified closures and a long time series of dedicated continual monitoring efforts) collectively, not as individual, standalone factors.

With recent changes to gear markings, we are only now beginning to definitively trace entanglement gear to its source. According to data spanning 2020-2022, entanglements with exclusively purple gear markings, signifying gear fished in Maine state waters, include three minke and two humpback whales. However, for the majority of documented entanglement cases spanning 2020-2022, gear could not be attributed to a specific origin (for 92 percent of North Atlantic right whale, 85 percent of humpback whale, 71 percent of minke whale, and 100 percent of fin whale cases).

The state of Maine's growing monitoring effort may inform future decisions regarding how to reduce North Atlantic right whale M/SI, as well as M/SI of other endangered large whales and marine mammals. As we continue to gather more data on whale distribution, habitat use, movement and M/SI due to entanglements, NMFS will evaluate whether splitting out the Maine state waters trap/pot fishery from the broader Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery is appropriate.

In this final rule, NMFS corrects an error from the proposed rule in table 2 and removes the Category III U.S. Atlantic tuna purse seine fishery. On October 3, 2022, NMFS published a final rule that discontinued the use of purse seines in the Atlantic highly migratory species bluefin tuna fishery (87 FR 59966, effective January 1, 2023).

Based on public comment, and for consistency with the current stock name in the SARs, NMFS revises the stock name from Northern sea otter, South central AK to Northern sea otter, Southcentral AK on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the following fisheries: (1) Category II AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet, (2) Category II AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet, and (3) Category III AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet.

Based on public comment, NMFS retains the “1” superscript for the Eastern North Pacific Alaska resident stock of killer whale in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery.

Based on public comment, NMFS adds the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III WA/OR/CA groundfish/finfish hook and line fishery.

The following summarizes changes to the LOF for 2024, including the classification of fisheries, fisheries listed, the estimated number of vessels/persons in a particular fishery, and the species and/or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery. NMFS adds one fishery, removes seven fisheries, and reclassifies four fisheries in the LOF for 2024. NMFS also makes changes to the estimated number of vessels/persons and list of species and/or stocks killed or injured in certain fisheries. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2024 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2023, except for the changes discussed below. State and regional abbreviations used in the following paragraphs include AK (Alaska), CA (California), FL (Florida), GA (Georgia), HI (Hawaii), NC (North Carolina), OR (Oregon), SC (South Carolina), WA (Washington), and WNA (Western North Atlantic).

NMFS reclassifies the Category II AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery to a Category I fishery.

NMFS reclassifies the Category II CA Dungeness crab pot fishery to a Category I fishery.

NMFS reclassifies the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot fishery to a Category III fishery.

NMFS combines the Category III AK Dungeness crab fishery with the Category III AK miscellaneous invertebrates handpick fishery.

NMFS removes the Category III AK roe herring and food/bait herring beach seine fishery from the LOF.

NMFS removes the Category III AK state-managed waters of Prince William Sound groundfish trawl fishery.

NMFS removes the Category III AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands groundfish hand troll and dinglebar troll fishery from the LOF.

NMFS removes the Category III AK herring spawn on kelp dive hand/mechanical collection fishery from the LOF.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the southern Southeast Alaska inland waters stocks of harbor porpoise to indicate the stock is driving the Category I classification of the AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category I classification of the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery. NMFS also removes the superscript “1” from Eastern North Pacific stock of blue whale to indicate the stock is not driving the Category I classification of the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery.

NMFS removes the superscript “1” from the CA/OR/WA stock of minke whale to indicate the stock is no longer driving the Category II classification of the CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh) fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico—CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the CA halibut/white seabass and other species set gillnet (>3.5 in mesh) fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “2” to the Category II AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery to indicate this fishery is classified by analogy.

NMFS removes the superscript “2” from the Category II AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery to indicate this fishery is not classified by analogy to other Category II gillnet fisheries. NMFS also adds the superscript “1” to the Yakutat/Southeast Alaska offshore waters stock of harbor porpoise to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery.

NMFS removes the superscript “1” from the Western North Pacific stock of humpback whale to indicate the stocks is no longer driving the Category II classification of the AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the CA coonstripe shrimp pot fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the CA spiny lobster fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the CA spot prawn pot fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the OR Dungeness crab pot fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to both the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stocks of humpback whale to indicate the stocks are driving the Category II classification of the WA/OR/CA sablefish pot fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock of humpback whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the WA coastal Dungeness crab pot fishery.

NMFS adds the superscript “1” to the North Pacific stock of sperm whale to indicate the stock is driving the Category II classification of the AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Pacific Ocean (table 1) as follows:

• HI deep-set longline fishery from 150 to 146 vessels/persons; and

• AK Southeast salmon drift gillnet fishery from 474 to 371 vessels/persons.

• AK Bristol Bay salmon drift gillnet fishery from 1,862 to 1,521 vessels/persons;

• AK Bristol Bay salmon set gillnet fishery from 979 to 855 vessels/persons;

• AK Kodiak salmon set gillnet fishery from 188 to 128 vessels/persons;

• AK Cook Inlet salmon set gillnet fishery from 736 to 479 vessels/persons;

• AK Cook Inlet salmon drift gillnet fishery from 569 to 355 vessels/persons;

• AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon drift gillnet fishery from 162 to 148 vessels/persons;

• AK Peninsula/Aleutian Islands salmon set gillnet fishery from 113 to 75 vessels/persons;

• AK Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery from 537 to 483 vessels/persons;

• AK Yakutat salmon set gillnet fishery from 168 to 95 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands flatfish trawl fishery from 32 to 29 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery from 102 to 116 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish longline fishery from 295 to 177 vessels/persons;

• American Samoa longline fishery from 18 to 11 vessels/persons; and

• HI shortline fishery from 11 to 8 vessels/persons.

• AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, Norton Sound, Kotzebue salmon gillnet fishery from 1,778 to 360 vessels/persons;

• AK Prince William Sound salmon set gillnet fishery from 29 to 25 vessels/persons;

• AK roe herring and food/bait herring gillnet fishery from 920 to 15 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore gillnet fishery form 27 to 26 vessels/persons;

• AK Cook Inlet salmon purse seine fishery from 83 to 16 vessels/persons;

• AK Kodiak salmon purse seine fishery from 376 to 159 vessels/persons;

• AK Southeast salmon purse seine fishery from 315 to 206 vessels/persons;

• AK roe herring and food/bait herring purse seine fishery from 356 to 31 vessels/persons;

• AK salmon beach seine fishery from 31 to two vessels/persons;

• AK salmon purse seine (Prince William Sound, Chignik, Alaska Peninsula) fishery from 936 to 298 vessels/persons;

• HI throw net, cast net fishery from 16 to 13 vessels/persons;

• HI seine net fishery from 16 to 17 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish hand troll and dinglebar troll fishery from unknown to four vessels/persons;

• AK salmon troll fishery from 1,908 to 850 vessels/persons;

• American Samoa tuna troll fishery from three to six vessels/persons;

• HI troll fishery from 1,293 to 1,124 vessels/persons;

• HI rod and reel fishery from 246 to 235 vessels/persons;

• Guam tuna troll fishery from 465 to 450 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod longline fishery from 45 to 26 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish longline fishery from 22 to eight vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands halibut longline fishery from 127 to 84 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska halibut longline fishery from 855 to 689 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod longline fishery from 92 to 23 vessels/persons;

• AK octopus/squid longline fishery from three to zero vessels/persons;

• HI kaka line fishery from 16 to 17 vessels/persons;

• HI vertical line fishery from five to six vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Atka mackerel trawl fishery from 13 to 17 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod trawl fishery from 72 to 64 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands rockfish trawl fishery from 17 to 22 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska flatfish trawl fishery from 36 to 16 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod trawl fishery from 55 to 12 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska pollock trawl fishery from 67 to 60 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska rockfish trawl fishery from 43 to 35 vessels/persons;

• AK Kodiak food/bait herring otter trawl fishery from four to zero vessels/persons;

• AK shrimp otter trawl and beam trawl fishery from 38 to 12 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands Pacific cod pot fishery from 59 to 80 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands sablefish pot fishery from 16 to 15 vessels/persons;

• AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot fishery from 540 to 73 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska crab pot fishery from 271 to 86 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod pot fishery from 116 to 48 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska sablefish pot fishery from 248 to 129 vessels/persons;

• AK Southeast Alaska shrimp pot fishery from 99 to 104 vessels/persons;

• AK shrimp pot, except Southeast fishery from 141 to 77 vessels/persons;

• AK octopus/squid pot fishery from 15 to zero vessels/persons;

• HI crab trap fishery from three to four vessels/persons;

• HI crab net fishery from three to four vessels/persons;

• HI Kona crab loop net fishery from 24 to 13 vessels/persons;

• American Samoa bottomfish fishery from 46 to 44 vessels/persons;

• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands bottomfish fishery from 12 to seven vessels/persons;

• Guam bottomfish fishery from 84 to 63 vessels/persons;

• HI bottomfish handline fishery from 404 to 382 vessels/persons;

• HI inshore handline fishery from 182 to 158 vessels/persons;

• HI pelagic handline fishery from 311 to 271 vessels/persons;

• AK Gulf of Alaska groundfish jig fishery from 214 to 68 vessels/persons;

• AK halibut jig fishery from 71 to five vessels/persons;

• AK herring spawn on kelp pound net fishery from 291 to 143 vessels/persons;

• AK Southeast herring roe/food/bait pound net fishery from two to one vessels/persons;

• AK clam fishery from 130 to 57 vessels/persons;

• AK miscellaneous invertebrates handpick fishery from 214 to 188 vessels/persons;

• HI black coral diving fishery from less than three to none recorded;

• HI handpick fishery from 28 to 25 vessels/persons;

• HI lobster diving fishery from 10 to 12 vessels/persons;

• HI spearfishing fishery from 79 to 67 vessels/persons; and

• HI aquarium collecting fishery from 39 to none recorded.

NMFS adds the Beringia stock of bearded seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II AK Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands pollock trawl fishery.

NMFS adds the U.S. stock of California sea lion to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III CA sea cucumber trawl fishery.

NMFS removes the Hawaii stock of striped dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I HI deep-set longline fishery.

NMFS removes the Hawaii stock of fin whale and Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II HI shallow-set longline fishery.

NMFS revises marine mammal stock names on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured for consistency with the current stock names in the SARs as follows:

• Harbor seal, Bering Sea to harbor seal, Bristol Bay; and

• Northern elephant seal, California to Northern elephant seal, California breeding.

NMFS updates the harbor porpoise stocks on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured based on the revised stock structures in the 2022 SAR (Young et al., 2023) as follows:

• Harbor porpoise, southeast Alaska to harbor porpoise, southern Southeast Alaska inland waters and harbor porpoise, northern Southeast Alaska inland waters, and

• Harbor porpoise, southeast Alaska to harbor porpoise, Yakutat/Southeast Alaska offshore waters.

NMFS updates the humpback whale stocks on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured based on the revised stock structures in the 2022 SAR (Carretta et al., 2023; Young et al., 2023) as follows:

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, CA/OR/WA to humpback whale, Central America/Southern Mexico-CA/OR/WA and humpback whale, Mainland Mexico-CA/OR/WA stock;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific;

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i, and

• Humpback whale, Central North Pacific to humpback whale, Hawai'i and humpback whale, Mexico-North Pacific.

NMFS reclassifies the Category III U.S. Mid-Atlantic mixed species stop seine/weir/pound net (except the NC roe mullet stop net) fishery to a Category II fishery. NMFS also adds the fishery to the list of affected fisheries for the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan in table 4.

NMFS adds the Virginia shrimp trawl fishery as a Category II fishery.

NMFS removes the superscript “1” from the WNA stock of long-finned pilot whale to indicate the stock is no longer driving the Category II classification of the Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) fishery.

NMFS combines the Category II Northeast anchored float gillnet fishery into the Category I Northeast sink gillnet fishery. This change does not affect either fisheries' requirements under the Harbor Porpoise or Atlantic Large Whale TRPs (see table 4).

NMFS revises the fishery descriptions for the Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot fishery and Category II Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery. NMFS adds Jonah crab as a target species for the Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster trap/pot fishery and removes Jonah crab as a target species from the Category II Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fishery. NMFS also revises the name of the Category I Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean (table 2) as follows:

• Northeast sink gillnet fishery from 4,072 to 4,924 vessels/persons;

• NC inshore gillnet fishery from 2,676 to 1,157 vessels/persons; and,

• NC long haul seine fishery from 22 to 10 vessels/persons.

NMFS corrects an administrative error in table 2. NMFS updates the bottlenose dolphin stock name from FL Bay estuarine to FL Bay in the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III FL spiny lobster trap/pot fishery.

NMFS adds the WNA stock of harp seal to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery.

NMFS adds the WNA stock of white-sided dolphin to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Northeast mid-water trawl (including pair trawl) fishery.

NMFS adds the Biscayne Bay estuarine stock of bottlenose dolphin to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery.

NMFS adds the Charleston estuarine system stock of bottlenose dolphin to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category III Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean commercial passenger fishing vessel fishery.

NMFS removes both the SC/GA coastal and Southern migratory coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery.

NMFS removes the Charleston estuarine system stock of bottlenose dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery.

NMFS removes Category II Atlantic Highly Migratory Species trawl fishery from the LOF.

NMFS removes Category II South Pacific tuna fisheries troll fishery from the LOF.

NMFS updates the estimated number of HSFCA permits for high seas fisheries (table 3) as follows:

• Western Pacific pelagic (HI deep-set component) longline fishery from 150 to 146 HSFCA permits;

• Pacific highly migratory species drift gillnet fishery from three to two HSFCA permits;

• Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna purse seine fishery from 34 to 14 HSFCA permits;

• South Pacific albacore troll longline fishery from eight to six HSFCA permits;

• Pacific highly migratory species handline/pole and line fishery from 45 to 36 HSFCA permits;

• South Pacific albacore troll handline/pole and line fishery from seven to one HSFCA permits;

• South Pacific albacore troll fishery from 24 to 23 HSFCA permits;

• Western Pacific pelagic troll fishery from seven to six HSFCA permits;

• Northwest Atlantic bottom longline fishery from two to one HSFCA permits;

• Pacific highly migratory species longline fishery from 127 to 119 HSFCA permits;

• Pacific highly migratory species purse seine fishery from two to one HSFCA permits;

• Northwest Atlantic trawl fishery from three to one HSFCA permits; and,

• Pacific highly migratory species troll fishery from 93 to 95 HSFCA permits.

NMFS removes the Hawaii stock of striped dolphin from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I Western Pacific Pelagic longline fishery (HI deep-set component).

NMFS removes the unknown stock of pygmy killer whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna purse seine fishery.

NMFS removes the Hawaii stock of fin whale and Central North Pacific stock of humpback whale from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Western Pacific Pelagic longline fishery (HI shallow-set component).

The following tables set forth the list of U.S. commercial fisheries according to their classification under section 118 of the MMPA. Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska), table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, table 3 lists commercial fisheries on the high seas, and table 4 lists fisheries affected by TRPs or TRTs.

In tables 1 and 2, the estimated number of vessels or persons participating in fisheries operating within U.S. waters is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants, vessels, or persons licensed in a fishery, then the number from the most recent LOF is used for the estimated number of vessels or persons in the fishery. NMFS acknowledges that, in some cases, these estimates may be inflations of actual effort. For example, the State of Hawaii does not issue fishery-specific licenses, and the number of participants reported in the LOF represents the number of commercial marine license holders who reported using a particular fishing gear type/method at least once in a given year, without considering how many times the gear was used. For these fisheries, effort by a single participant is counted the same whether the fisherman used the gear only once or every day. In the Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries, the numbers represent the potential effort for each fishery, given the multiple gear types for which several state permits may allow. Changes made to Mid-Atlantic and New England fishery participants will not affect observer coverage or bycatch estimates, as observer coverage and bycatch estimates are based on vessel trip reports and landings data. Tables 1 and 2 serve to provide a description of the fishery's potential effort (state and Federal). If NMFS is able to gather more accurate information on the gear types used by state permit holders in the future, the numbers will be updated to reflect this change. For additional information on fishing effort in fisheries found on table 1 or 2, contact the relevant regional office (contact information included above in the section: Where can I find more information about the LOF and the MMAP?).

For high seas fisheries, table 3 lists the number of valid HSFCA permits currently held. Although this likely overestimates the number of active participants in many of these fisheries, the number of valid HSFCA permits is the most reliable data on the potential effort in high seas fisheries at this time. As noted previously, the number of HSFCA permits listed in table 3 for the high seas components of fisheries that also operate within U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort not accounted for in tables 1 and 2. Many vessels holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in tables 1 and 2.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 also list the marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or injured (seriously or non-seriously) in each fishery based on SARs, injury determination reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, stranding data, disentanglement network data, fishermen self-reports ( i.e., MMAP reports), and anecdotal reports. The best available scientific information included in these reports is based on data through 2020. This list includes all species and/or stocks known to be killed or injured in a given fishery, but also includes species and/or stocks for which there are anecdotal records of a mortality or injury. Additionally, species identified by logbook entries, stranding data, or fishermen self-reports ( i.e., MMAP reports) may not be verified. In tables 1 and 2, NMFS has designated those species/stocks driving a fishery's classification ( i.e., the fishery is classified based on mortalities and serious injuries of a marine mammal stock that are greater than or equal to 50 percent (Category I), or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent (Category II), of a stock's PBR) by including a “1” after the stock's name.

In tables 1 and 2, there are several fisheries classified as Category II that have no recent documented mortalities or serious injuries of marine mammals, or fisheries that did not result in a mortality or serious injury rate greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level based on known interactions. NMFS has classified these fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995), and according to factors listed in the definition of a “Category II fishery” in 50 CFR 229.2 ( i.e., fishing techniques, gear types, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fishermen reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area). NMFS has designated those fisheries listed by analogy in tables 1 and 2 by adding a “2” after the fishery's name.

There are several fisheries in tables 1, 2, and 3 in which a portion of the fishing vessels cross the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary and therefore operate both within U.S. waters and on the high seas. These fisheries, though listed separately on tables 1, 2, or 3, are considered the same fisheries on either side of the EEZ boundary. NMFS has designated those fisheries in each table with an asterisk (*) after the fisheries' names.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on that certification, and no new information has been discovered to change that conclusion. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule contains existing collection-of-information (COI) requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act but would not impose additional or new COI requirements. The COI for the registration of individuals under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants). The requirement for reporting marine mammal mortalities or injuries has been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the COI. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the COI, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). You may also submit comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain .

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

This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

In accordance with the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS determined that the publication of this LOF qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review, consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion G7 (“Preparation of policy directives, rules, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature, or for which the environmental effects are too broad, speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will be subject later to the NEPA process, either collectively or on a case-by-case basis”) of the Companion Manual and we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A that would preclude application of this categorical exclusion. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would first prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment, as required under NEPA, specific to that action.

This rule would not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this rule will not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would consult under ESA section 7 on that action.

This rule would have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals through information collected from observer programs, stranding and sighting data, or take reduction teams.

This rule would not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

On September 15, 2016, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Monument was designated in the waters of the North Atlantic (Presidential Proclamation 9496; 81 FR 65161, September 21, 2016), to include both a Canyons Unit and a Seamounts Unit. This Proclamation prohibited commercial fishing within the Monument, with a 7-year exemption for the American lobster and Atlantic deep-sea red crab fisheries. In June 2020, Monument prohibitions were revised via Proclamation 10049 (85 FR 35793, June 11, 2020) removing commercial fishing from the list of prohibited activities set forth in the 2016 Proclamation. Most recently, in October 2021, Proclamation 10287 (86 FR 57349, October 15, 2021) restored commercial fishing to the list of prohibited activities, providing “for the prohibition of all commercial fishing in the Monument, except for red crab and American lobster commercial fishing, which may be permitted until September 15, 2023.”

Consistent with Proclamation 10287 (68 FR 57349, October 15, 2021) and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, this action defines the boundary coordinates of the Monument area in the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations at 50 CFR 600.10. Tables 1 and 2 below include coordinates for the Canyons and Seamounts Units.

This rule also reflects Proclamation 10287's prohibition on commercial fishing within the boundaries of the Monument in the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibitions at § 600.725 and clarifies that commercial fishermen may transit through the Monument if fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use during passage through the Monument.

We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 19, 2023 (88 FR 72038), soliciting public comment. The comment period ended on November 20, 2023. We received a total of 11,640 comments submitted by 6 individual commercial and recreational fishermen; 2 academics and researchers; 11,589 members of the public; and 40 environmental, 2 commercial fishing, and 1 legal organization. One comment related to wind development, which is not the subject of this action, and is not discussed further. A more detailed summary of the relevant comments and our responses is provided below.

Comment 1: A total of seven commenters—four individual fishermen, two members of the public, and one commercial fishing organization—expressed general opposition to the action because (1) the commercial fishing prohibition results in the loss of an important fishing ground; (2) the commercial fishing prohibition will have a negative impact on fisheries in general or on pelagic longline and highly migratory species fisheries specifically; (3) the loss of fishing opportunity for species managed multilaterally by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas may result in reductions of U.S. quota, reallocated to countries with less sustainable management; (4) the commercial fishing prohibition gives exclusive access to recreational fisheries, and the area should either be closed or open to all fisheries without any exceptions; (5) recreational fisheries do not have the same level of monitoring as commercial fisheries; (6) marine protected areas are the least effective fisheries management tool and fail to recognize biology and ecology, are not adaptive, and force vessels to fish in less desirable areas; (7) fisheries that do not interact with benthic habitat and/or that have sufficient monitoring in place should be allowed to fish in the Monument; (8) “objects of historic or scientific interest,” which the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 320301-320303) was established to protect, does not include living marine resources; (9) the Monument does not represent the “smallest area compatible” with the proper care and management of the objects the Monument was established to protect, as required under the Antiquities Act; (10) the Monument does not provide proper care and management of highly migratory species, which have a much larger range than the Monument; (11) the establishment of the Monument was not based on the best scientific information available; and (12) the commercial fishing prohibition poses prosecution risk to members of industry if gear drifts, and vessels will not be able to set gear near the Monument because of this risk.

A total of 11,627 commenters—11,584 members of the public, 2 individual fishermen, 1 individual researcher, and 40 environmental organizations—expressed general support for the Monument for reasons including the Monument is a relatively small area, it is a unique area, it is in need of protection, it supports sustainable fisheries, and it balances conservation and economics. One comment further stated that the Monument should be fully protected and all fishing activity should be prohibited within its boundaries.

Response: These comments address the establishment of the Monument and its associated commercial fishing prohibition, which were implemented through Presidential Proclamations 10287 and 9496. NMFS does not establish, initiate, or control the marine monument process. Under the Antiquities Act, the President establishes marine monuments and makes the final decision on what is protected and what uses will be restricted upon establishment.

Comment 2: Two comments submitted by commercial fishing organizations criticize the development of the draft Management Plan, the lack of public involvement in its development, and the likelihood of its development having a substantial cost and little benefit.

Response: This rulemaking is separate and distinct from the development of the draft Management Plan. Further, NMFS is not primarily responsible for the Management Plan's development. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead agency responsible for the draft Management Plan.

Comment 3: One comment submitted by an organization asserts that NMFS' prohibition on commercial fishing in an area of the Atlantic Ocean is based on an “illegal” Presidential Proclamation issued under the Antiquities Act. The comment states that the Proclamation exceeds the President's authority under the Antiquities Act and violates the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers. Thus, it argues that any agency action, including this action seeking to include the Monument and the commercial fishing prohibition in the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations, is, among other legal flaws, arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law. Further, it asserts that the Monument's prohibition on commercial fishing is outside the President's authority under the Antiquities Act and that any agency action, including this rulemaking, taken in furtherance of the Monument designation would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Response: The Monument Proclamations 9496 and 10287 are within the President's authority under the Antiquities Act, and this rule is consistent with the APA. NMFS is an agency of the Executive Branch and thus is required to comply with directives from the President. The President prohibited commercial fishing in the Monument in the most recent Proclamation, Proclamation 10287. The Proclamation further directs NMFS to implement the existing prohibition on commercial fishing within the Monument.

Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that “The Secretary shall have general responsibility to carry out any fishery management plan (FMP) or amendment approved or prepared by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Secretary may promulgate such regulations, in accordance with section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, as may be necessary to discharge such responsibility or to carry out any other provision of this Act ” (emphasis added).

NMFS is responding to a change in law stemming from the Antiquities Act. Proclamation 10287's prohibition on commercial fishing is “existing law,” and section 303(a)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to be “consistent with . . . any other applicable law .” (Emphasis added). Including the prohibition against fishing in the Monument in the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations is consistent with existing law established by the Proclamation. It should be noted that both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils were invited to act to implement the Proclamation's prohibition on commercial fishing, and both declined.

Comment 4: One comment, submitted by a legal organization, states that the rule seeks to “conform” Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations to the Proclamation's commercial fishing prohibition within the Monument but, the commenter states, to prohibit commercial fishing under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must conform to the statutory requirements enacted by Congress in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The commenter believes NMFS has “ignored its duty and provided no analysis under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, the rule is, among other legal flaws, arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law.” A second comment, submitted by a commercial fishing organization, similarly stated that the rule should have included Magnuson-Stevens Act process requirements and National Standard considerations.

Response: Proclamation 10287 prohibited commercial fishing in the Monument on October 8, 2021. The prohibition went into effect immediately (with exceptions for red crab and lobster fishing until September 15, 2023).

As discussed above, the use of Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) is necessary to ensure FMPs are consistent with all applicable law, in accordance with section 303(a)(1)(C). In addition, the placement of these regulations in the overarching Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations at part 600 ensures that all existing and future FMPs ( i.e., not solely Greater Atlantic Region management plans) conform to section 303(a)(1)(C)'s mandate that plans are consistent with other applicable law.

This action is not discretionary and this rule does not impose a restriction or prohibition on commercial fishing in the Monument. The restriction and prohibition on commercial fishing within the Monument exists even in the absence of this rule. This rule is necessary to document within regulation the boundary coordinates of the Monument area so that the fishing industry and public can be informed as to the location of the Monument in order to comply with the commercial fishing prohibition. This rule is also necessary to document the prohibition on commercial fishing within the Monument and to ensure the commercial fishing industry and public are aware that commercial fishing vessels may transit the Monument provided that all fishing gear is stowed and unavailable for immediate use. This rule serves to ensure the commercial fishing industry has the information necessary to comply with the provisions of the Proclamation without being overburdened either due to uncertainty as to the boundary coordinates of the Monument area or uncertainty regarding whether transiting the Monument is authorized.

Comment 5: Four comments submitted by environmental organizations expressed support for the inclusion of the Monument commercial fishing prohibition into the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations. Three of the four comments provided the reasoning that the action fulfills the requirement in section 303(a)(1)(C) that FMPs be consistent with other applicable laws, in this case the Antiquities Act and Presidential Proclamations 10287 and 9496. Two of them provided further rationale that the action is consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. One of the comments did not provide further reasoning.

Response: NMFS agrees that section 303(a)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to be consistent with other applicable laws and is implementing this action under the Secretarial authority at section 305(d).

Comment 6: One comment from a legal organization states that this rulemaking skirts NMFS' duty to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). When an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the RFA usually requires the agency to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), which describes the effect a proposed rule will have on small entities. The commenter asserts that the lack of an IRFA for this proposed rule violates the RFA because it is based on the President's illegal action to prohibit commercial fishing in the Monument.

Response: The RFA generally requires that, when an agency publishes a proposed rule, as NMFS has done here, it must also “prepare and make available for public comment” an IRFA, that describes “the impact of the proposed rule on small entities” and also seek out and describe less burdensome alternatives to the proposed rule. However, because the Monument has been closed to commercial fishing by Proclamation 10287 since October 2021, this rule will have no additional effect on regulated entities beyond what is already in place. Moreover, the Proclamation's directive to NMFS to implement the commercial fishing prohibition gives the agency no discretion to consider or implement any alternatives. Therefore, NMFS cannot describe less burdensome alternatives to implementing the existing prohibition on commercial fishing, because there are no less burdensome alternatives.

While NMFS did not prepare an IRFA, it did comply with the RFA. Section 605(b) of the RFA indicates that the preparation of an IRFA or final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for rules that “will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” as certified by the head of the agency. In such cases, the agency is required to publish the certification, along with the factual basis for the certification, in the Federal Register with the notice of proposed rulemaking or the final rule. The proposed rule included the factual basis for this determination, as certified to the SBA Office of Advocacy by the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce, which demonstrates that while entities will be subject to this action, they are already subject to the commercial fishing prohibition, and, therefore, this action has no additional effect on these regulated entities.

Comment 7: One comment from a commercial fishing organization states that taking this action pursuant to an Executive Order citing the Antiquities Act, instead of using the processes established in the Magnuson-Stevens Act for closures and other actions, and the lack of any analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), are “the antithesis of good governance” and decries the lack of public involvement. However, the comment goes on to state: “We understand that NMFS has no discretion regarding this action; in fact, the docket clearly articulates this: `Because this action serves to bring the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations into compliance with Presidential Proclamations 9496 and 10287, there is no decision-making process for NMFS. NMFS has no discretion. As a result, there is no decision-making process, no alternatives to comply with the Proclamations, and no public involvement in the decision. There is no “proposal” for action, as defined in section 1501.1(a)(5) of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the NEPA. Therefore, NEPA does not apply to this action.' We understand this and therefore cannot argue against NMFS compliance with the Executive Orders as detailed in the Proposed Rule.”

Response: We agree with these comments regarding NMFS' lack of discretion in proposing this rule in compliance with the Proclamations' requirements. The President established the Monument and prohibited fishing in the Monument.

Comment 8: We received one comment from an individual researcher and two comments from environmental organizations related to the impacts of the Monument that, based on analyses submitted as part of one comment, there is little evidence that the commercial fishing prohibition had significant economic impacts on commercial fisheries. The two environmental organizations also commented that the inclusion of the commercial fishing prohibition into the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations would not have additional effects on regulated entities because the area is already closed to commercial fishing by Presidential Proclamations 10287 and 9496.

Response: NMFS agrees that this action will have no additional effect on regulated entities because fishing was previously prohibited in the Monument.

Comment 9: One environmental organization noted that the Monument process has included several opportunities for public participation, including the comment period on this rulemaking and additional comment periods related to the Monument ( e.g., prior to its designation, throughout the development of a management plan, at New England Fishery Management Council meetings).

Response: This rulemaking included an opportunity for public participation through the publication of a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 19, 2023 (88 FR 72038), soliciting public comment. The comment period ended on November 20, 2023. Other actions, including the Monument's establishment through Presidential Proclamation 9496 and the development of a management plan and public input submitted in response to those actions are separate and distinct from this rulemaking.

Comment 10: Two comments submitted by members of the public asked how the fishing prohibition would be enforced, in general or in regard to foreign fishing fleets.

Response: The commercial fishing prohibition in the Monument will be enforced with the same resources and tools that are used to enforce other existing closures and gear-restricted areas, including enforcement patrols and vessel monitoring and reporting requirements.

Comment 11: One member of the public stated that the reason for the 7-year phase-out for lobster and red crab is unclear and asked whether there would be regulations limiting the number of lobster and crab pots and specifying the type of rope used in the Monument for these fisheries.

Response: The 7-year phase-out for lobster and red crab was established by Presidential Proclamations 9496 and 10287. Under the Antiquities Act, the President establishes marine monuments and makes the final decision on what is protected and what uses will be restricted upon establishment. NMFS does not establish, initiate, or control the marine monument process. Presidential Proclamation 10287 established September 15, 2023, as the end of the phase-out period, and all commercial fishing is currently prohibited in the Monument by Presidential Proclamation. This action adds the commercial fishing prohibition within the Monument to the list of prohibited activities at § 600.725 and does not make any exceptions or differing regulations for the lobster or red crab fisheries. While lobster and Jonah crab are managed under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act with implementing regulations at part 697, this action applies to the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. The definitions (§ 697.2(a)) and prohibitions for lobster (§ 697.7(c)(1)) and Jonah crab (§ 697.7(h)) state that the Magnuson-Stevens Act definitions at § 600.10 and prohibitions at § 600.725 are also applicable to these fisheries.

Comment 12: One member of the public commented that it is unclear why NEPA didn't apply, as a “proposal” is being made and a change in activities allowed is also being implemented.

Response: Section 1501.1(a)(d) of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA states that an agency should consider “whether the proposed activity or decision, in whole or in part, is a non-discretionary action for which the agency lacks authority to consider environmental effects as part of its decision-making process” when determining whether NEPA applies. NMFS does not establish, initiate, or control the marine monument process. The President established the Monument under the Antiquities Act and made the final decision on what is protected and what uses are restricted within the Monument. Because this action serves to bring the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations into compliance with Presidential Proclamations 9496 and 10287, there is no decision-making process for NMFS. NMFS has no discretion. Therefore, NEPA does not apply to this action.

Comment 13: One comment from an individual researcher requested that the administrative record include three scientific analyses of fishing activity in the Monument (Lynham, J., Fishing Activity Before Closure, During Closure, and After Reopening of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. Sci. Reports 12, 1-21 (2022).; Lynham, J., The Northeast Canyons & Seamounts Marine National Monument and the Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery, Unpublished, 1-14.; Lynham, J., The Northeast Canyons & Seamounts Marine National Monument and the Atlantic Lobster Fishery, Unpublished, 1-15.) and one comment from a commercial fishing organization requested that it include comments it previously submitted in response to a Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping and to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary (87 FR 34853, June 8, 2022) and a Review of Certain National Monuments Established Since 1996; Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment (82 FR 22016, May 11, 2017) and two scientific publications (Hampton J, Lehodey P, Senina I, Nicol S, Scutt Phillips J and Tiamere K (2023), Limited Conservation Efficacy of Large-scale Marine Protected Areas for Pacific Skipjack and Bigeye Tunas. Front. Mar. Sci. 9:1060943. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1060943. Hilborn, R., Kaiser, M.J., A Path Forward for Analysing the Impacts of Marine Protected Areas. Nature 607, E1-E2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04775-1 ).

Response: As comments, including attachments and hyperlinked references, are part of the administrative record, the subject analyses and comments have been added to the administrative record for this action.

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to comply with section 303(a)(1)(C) by promulgating regulations (at §§ 600.10 and 600.725) to ensure that all FMPs implemented by the Secretary of Commerce are consistent with, and conform to, the Proclamations and the Antiquities Act by ensuring clearly articulated measures that apply to all commercial fishing vessels operating in the EEZ. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with other applicable law.

Because this action serves to bring the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations into compliance with Presidential Proclamations 9496 and 10287, there is no decision-making process for NMFS. NMFS has no discretion. As a result, there is no decision-making process, no alternatives to comply with the Proclamations, and no public involvement in the decision. There is no “proposal” for action, as defined in section 1501.1(a)(5) of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA. Therefore, NEPA does not apply to this action.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. We received one comment regarding requirements under the RFA. The comment did not contest the factual basis for the certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 600 to read as follows: