Authority: Title V, Section 504 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1474.

The RHS offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. The Agency offer loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single- and multifamily housing, child-care centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, housing for farm laborers and much more. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, state and Federal government agencies, and local communities.

The RHS Single Family Housing Direct Loans and Grants Program (SFHDLGP) Division implements the Section 504 loan/grant program under 7 CFR part 3550 with the objective to assist very low-income owner occupants of modest single-family homes in rural areas repair or rehabilitate their homes. Loan funds are available for repairs to improve or modernize a home, make it safer or more sanitary, or remove health and safety hazards. The eligibility requirements, as described in 7 CFR 3550.103, states that homeowner must be unable to obtain affordable credit elsewhere at reasonable terms and conditions but must demonstrate a reasonable ability to repay the Section 504 loan. For homeowners 62 years old and over, grant funds are available to correct health or safety hazards, or remodel dwellings to make them accessible to a household member with a disability.

RHS may authorize limited demonstration programs to test new approaches to offering housing under the statutory authority granted to the Secretary, as set forth in 7 CFR 3550.7. Such demonstration programs may not be consistent with some of the provisions contained in this part. However, any program requirements that are statutory will remain in effect.

In 2019, the Agency initiated the Section 504 pilot program to evaluate existing regulations and remove regulatory barriers to assist very low-income homeowners seeking to repair or rehabilitate their homes. The pilot program has been successful in creating additional opportunities and greater accessibility for eligible applicants. All but two of the waived regulatory requirements were included in the Direct Singe Family Loans and Grants Programs Final rule (87 FR 6761), which became effective on March 9, 2022.

The Agency is continuing the Section 504 Pilot Program with the two waivers that were not included in the Final rule (87 FR 6761), but were subsequently included in the notification of waivers (87 FR 40709) published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2022 (which expires on July 8, 2024). The Agency anticpates a rulemaking in the future that will codify the waivers into 7 CFR part 3550, and which will be applied program-wide.

The first waiver is that pilot applicants are not subject to the site requirement outlined in 7 CFR 3550.105(b) which states that “the site must not be large enough to be subdivided into more than one site under existing local zoning ordinances.” While pilot applicants can have subdividable sites, their homes must meet the other site requirements found in 7 CFR 3550.105(a) and the dwelling requirements found in 7 CFR 3550.106.

The second waiver is that pilot applicants are not subject to the same appraisal threshold outlined in 7 CFR 3550.111, which requires an appraisal when the Section 504 debt to be secured exceeds $15,000 or whenever the Agency determines that an appraisal is necessary to establish the adequacy of the security. A “subject to repairs” appraisal and appraisal fee will be required when the assessed valuation by local authorities does not support a fully secured interest by the Agency, or when the sum of all secured (Rural Development or non-Rural Devleopment) indebtedness including the proposed repair loan, exceeds $25,000.

Eligible participants in the Section 504 program must abide by the requriements set forth in 7 CFR part 3550. The following twenty-three (23) States and U.S. Territories are selected to provide wide geographic and historic production variation for the pilot: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. If an existing borrower in a pilot state qualifies for a subsequent loan or grant, the pilot conditions can apply to the subsequent request as appropriate. Non-pilot states may request case-by-case administrative waivers (if justified) that mirror the allowances in the pilot.

The regulatory waivers for this pilot contains no new reporting or recordkeeping burdens under OMB control number 0575-0179 that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, or staff office; the USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY); or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(2) Fax: (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: Program.Intake@usda.gov.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2195 in the Federal Register (88 FR 78267; November 15, 2023), proposing to revoke Colored Federal Airway B-9 in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Colored Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6009(d) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

The action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking Colored Federal Airway B-9. This change facilitates the decommissioning of the Marathon, FL (MTH), NDB. The amendment is described below.

B-9: Prior to this final rule, B-9 extended between the DEEDS, FL, Fix and the Marathon NDB. The route is dependent on the Marathon NDB which is scheduled to be decommissioned. The FAA removes the route in its entirety.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Colored Federal Airway B-9 in the eastern United States, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the Air Traffic Service (ATS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-2314 in the Federal Register (88 FR 87380; December 18, 2023), proposing to amend seven VOR Federal airways, revoke one VOR Federal airway, and revoke one Colored Federal airway in the eastern United States. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA identified that the exclusionary statement in the description of VOR Federal Airways V-155 and V-157 excluding restricted area R-6602 is no longer necessary as the airway segments adjacent to R-6602 are being removed. This action removes these exclusionary statements.

Additionally, minor editorial corrections to the airway descriptions are made to comply with ATS route formatting requirements.

Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airways V-66, V-155, V-157, V-258, V-266, V-454, and V-469; and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-189 and Colored Federal Airway G-13. These changes facilitate the scheduled decommissioning of the following navigation aids: Danville, VA (DAN), VOR; Franklin, VA (FKN), VORTAC; Lawrenceville, VA (LVL), VORTAC; Wright Brothers, NC (RBX), VOR/DME; and Manteo, NC (MQI), NDB. The amendments are described below.

G-13: Prior to this final rule, G-13 extended between the Manteo, NC (MQI), NDB and the ZOLMN, NC, Fix. The FAA removes the route in its entirety.

V-66: Prior to this final rule, V-66 extended between the Mission Bay, CA (MZB), VORTAC and the Millsap, TX (MQP), VORTAC; between the Brookwood, AL (OKW), VORTAC and the LaGrange, GA (LGC), VORTAC; and between the Sandhills, NC (SDZ), VORTAC and the Franklin, VA (FKN), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segment between the Raleigh/Durham, NC (RDU), VORTAC and the Franklin VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Mission Bay VORTAC and the Millsap VORTAC; between the Brookwood VORTAC and the LaGrange VORTAC; and between the Sandhills VORTAC and the Raleigh/Durham VORTAC.

V-155: Prior to this final rule, V-155 extended between the intersection of the Dublin, GA (DBN), VORTAC 309° and the Colliers, SC (IRQ), VORTAC 243° radials, and the Brooke, VA (BRV), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Raleigh/Durham, NC (RDU), VORTAC and the Flat Rock, VA (FAK), VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the intersection of the Dublin, VORTAC 309° and the Colliers VORTAC 243° radials and the Raleigh/Durham VORTAC; and between the Flat Rock VORTAC and the Brooke VORTAC.

V-157: Prior to this final rule, V-157 extended between the Key West, FL (EYW), VORTAC and the Waycross, GA (AYS), VORTAC; between the Florence, SC (FLO), VORTAC and the Richmond, VA (RIC), VORTAC; and between the Robbinsville, NJ (RBV), VORTAC and the Albany, NY (ALB), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Tar River, NC (TYI), VORTAC and the Richmond VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Key West VORTAC and the Waycross VORTAC; between the Florence VORTAC and the Tar River VORTAC; and between the Robbinsville VORTAC and the Albany VORTAC.

V-189: Prior to this final rule, V-189 extended between the Wright Brothers, NC (RBX), VOR/DME and the Hopewell, VA (HPW), VORTAC. The FAA removes the route in its entirety.

V-258: Prior to this final rule, V-258 extended between the Charleston, WV (HVQ), VOR/DME and the Danville, VA (DAN), VOR. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Roanoke, VA (ROA), VOR/DME and the Danville VOR. As amended, the route extends between the Charleston VOR/DME and the Roanoke VOR/DME.

V-266: Prior to this final rule, V-266 extended between the Electric City, SC (ELW), VORTAC and the Spartanburg, SC (SPA), VORTAC; and between the Greensboro, NC (GSO), VORTAC and the Wright Brothers, NC (RBX), VOR/DME. The FAA removes the airway segments between the South Boston, VA (SBV), VORTAC and the SUNNS, NC, Fix; and between the Elizabeth City, NC (ECG), VOR/DME, and the Wright Brothers VOR/DME. The SUNNS intersection is defined by the intersection of the Elizabeth City, VOR/DME 304° and the Norfolk, VA (OFK), VOR/DME 209° radials. As amended, the route extends between the Electric City VORTAC and the Spartanburg VORTAC; between the Greensboro VORTAC and the South Boston VORTAC; and between the intersection of the Elizabeth City VOR/DME 304° and Norfolk, VA 209° radials and the Elizabeth City VOR/DME.

V-454: Prior to this final rule, V-454 extended between the Brookley, AL (BFM), VORTAC and the Monroeville, AL (MVC), VORTAC; and between the intersection of the Charlotte, VA (CLT), VOR/DME 034° and Liberty, NC (LIB), VORTAC 253° radials and the Hopewell, VA (HPW), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segments between the Liberty VORTAC and the Hopewell VORTAC. As amended, the route extends between the Brookley VORTAC and the Monroeville VORTAC; and between the intersection of the Charlotte VOR/DME 034° and Liberty VORTAC 253° radials and the Liberty VORTAC.

V-469: Prior to this final rule, V-469 extended between the Danville, VA (DAN), VOR and the Johnstown, PA (JST), VOR/DME; and between the Harrisburg, PA (HAR), VORTAC and the Woodstown, NJ (OOD), VORTAC. The FAA removes the airway segment between the Danville VOR and the Lynchburg, VA (LYH), VOR/DME. As amended, the route extends between the Lynchburg VOR/DME and the Johnstown VOR/DME; and between the Harrisburg VORTAC and the Woodstown VORTAC.

The navigational aid radials listed are stated in True degrees.

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

The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal Airway V-66, V-155, V-157, V-258, V-266, V-454, and V-469, and revoking VOR Federal Airway V-189 and Colored Federal Airway G-13 in the eastern United States, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review “Actions regarding establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways ) . . .”. As such, this airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code, subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports updating certain boundary coordinates for the special air traffic rules for aircraft operating in the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area.

Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

The FAA has no discretion to change these coordinates. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and public comment is unnecessary. This is an amendment to reconcile the coordinates of U.S. maritime limits described in the Valparaiso Terminal Area description with those maritime limits published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pursuant to its statutory authority in title 33, United States Code, sections 883a-883d. This rule is an administrative reconciliation and does not affect the airspace's altitude or operating requirements. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary.

The boundary coordinates and descriptions for the special air traffic rules for aircraft operating in the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area are linked to the overlying restricted area latitude/longitude coordinates. These restricted area boundary descriptions use maritime limits, such as references to the shoreline of the United States (U.S.), to identify the shape of the area ( e.g., “3 [nautical miles (NM)] from and parallel to the shoreline”). As such, the boundary descriptions contain latitude/longitude coordinates that were intended to intersect a line running 3 NM from and parallel to the shoreline.

In 2018, following its receipt of updated digital data for maritime limits from the NOAA, the FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2018-0728 in the Federal Register (83 FR 40967, August 17, 2018), updating the overlying restricted airspace boundary descriptions in title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to align with the NOAA's digital data. In that rulemaking, the FAA explained that its use of the NOAA's more precise digital data allowed it to accurately update the U.S. maritime limit boundaries used for aeronautical charting. Prior to the update, the maritime limit boundary data used for charting were over 25 years old. In applying the updated data, the FAA found that some boundary descriptions, based on the maritime limits, did not correspond to the updated shoreline data. Consequently, there were minor differences between some special flight rules areas latitude/longitude coordinates and the overlying restricted airspace.

This rulemaking action amends 14 CFR part 93 to similarly update the East-West Corridor of the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area, to ensure that the published boundaries match the actual relation to both the U.S. shoreline and overlying restricted airspace to maintain aeronautical chart accuracy and consistency.

Specifically, this action amends 14 CFR part 93 by updating the coordinates of five points in the description of the East-West Corridor of the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area. The points under § 93.81(b) are amended as follows:

Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a variety of Executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $183 million using the most current (2023) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094. This action updates five latitude/longitude points in the description of the East-West Corridor of the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area. The changes are needed because the FAA has adopted updated digital data that more precisely define maritime limits and other geophysical features used in the boundary descriptions. This action is administrative and does not make substantive changes to the Valparaiso, Florida, Terminal Area.

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

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

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it ensures the safety of the American public and does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, the FAA does not consider this final rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. The FAA determined that the final rule will not result in the expenditure of $183 million or more by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

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

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

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

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

The Entity List (supplement no. 4 to part 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to § 744.11(b). The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of, most license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) when a listed entity is a party to the transaction. The license review policy for each listing is identified in the “License Review Policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document that added the listing to the Entity List. BIS amends the Entity List pursuant to parts 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

The ERC determined to add AO Kaspersky Lab and OOO Kaspersky Group, under the destination of Russia, and Kaspersky Labs Limited, under the destination of United Kingdom, to the Entity List. These entities are being added for their cooperation with Russian military and intelligence authorities in support of the Russian government's cyber intelligence objectives. This activity is contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests under § 744.11 of the EAR. A license for these entities will be required for all items subject to the EAR; the licenses will be reviewed under a presumption of denial.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following 3 entities including aliases where appropriate, to the Entity List:

• AO Kaspersky Lab; and

• OOO Kaspersky Group.

• Kaspersky Labs Limited.

For the changes being made in this final rule, shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, reexport, or transfer (in-country), on June 24, 2024, pursuant to actual orders for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to or within a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license (NLR) before July 24, 2024. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on July 24, 2024, require a license in accordance with this final rule.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves an information collection approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System. BIS does not anticipate a change to the burden hours associated with this collection as a result of this rule. Information regarding the collection, including all supporting materials, can be accessed at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

Title III of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-125; 130 Stat. 122; Section 628A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1628a), as amended) (TFTEA), made several significant changes to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) procedures related to the importation of merchandise that violates or is suspected of violating intellectual property rights (IPR). Among the changes made by TFTEA are certain provisions regarding enforcement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Pub. L. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, as amended by Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1536, (codified at 17 U.S.C. 1201)) (DMCA). The DMCA prohibits the importation of devices used to circumvent the technological measures employed by certain copyright owners to protect their works (“copyright protection measures”).

Section 303(a) of TFTEA amended section 596(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)) by adding subparagraph (G) (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)(G)), which provides that CBP may seize merchandise containing a circumvention device violating the DMCA. Section 303(b) of TFTEA states that, when merchandise containing a circumvention device is seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)(G), CBP must disclose to persons injured by that circumvention device information regarding the seized merchandise that is equivalent to the information disclosed to copyright owners when merchandise is seized for violation of the copyright laws.

Section 302 of TFTEA amended the Tariff Act of 1930 by inserting a new section 628A (19 U.S.C. 1628a) authorizing CBP to make certain pre-seizure information disclosures to owners of properly recorded trademarks or copyrights that may comprise information otherwise protected by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). CBP is authorized to disclose information when CBP determines that these disclosures would assist CBP in determining whether the imported merchandise suspected of violating the IPR laws actually violates 17 U.S.C. 602 (copyright), 17 U.S.C. 1201 (circumvention devices), or 19 U.S.C. 1526 (trademark), as long as the disclosures would not compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation or national security. Specifically, section 302(a) of TFTEA (19 U.S.C. 1628a(a)) permits CBP to disclose to the right holder information that appears on the imported merchandise and its packaging and labels, including unredacted images of the merchandise and its packaging and labels. CBP also may, subject to any applicable bonding requirements, release unredacted samples of the merchandise to the right holder.

On October 16, 2019, the Enforcement of Copyrights and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 55251). The NPRM proposed changes to 19 CFR part 133 necessary to implement the applicable provisions of title III of TFTEA, clarify the definition of “piratical articles,” provide for procedural safeguards to limit the release of information concerning non-violative shipments, simplify the detention process related to merchandise suspected of violating the copyright laws, and clarify the existing CBP procedures for post-seizure disclosures.

Section 133.47 provides for post-seizure disclosures to persons injured by a circumvention device, as defined in § 133.47(a)(4), who have successfully applied for and been approved by CBP for DMCA protections as provided in § 133.47(b)(2)(iii). Section 133.47(b)(2)(iii) announces the establishment of a list of persons approved by CBP to receive such post-seizure disclosures. In response to the public comments received, as discussed in more detail below, this final rule expands the ways that an eligible person, as defined in § 133.47(a)(3), may apply to CBP for these DMCA protections. Eligible persons may apply for such DMCA protections when this final rule becomes effective by attaching a letter requesting such disclosures to an application to record or renew a copyright. Owners of existing recorded copyrights may apply for these DMCA protections by submitting a letter requesting such disclosures to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch of Regulations and Rulings at HQIPRBranch@cbp.dhs.gov . Pursuant to section 303(b)(2) of TFTEA, CBP will publish a notice, signed by the Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, in the Federal Register when the list is established. CBP will also publish the necessary revisions to the list in a notice signed by the Executive Director, Regulations and Rulings, in the Federal Register on, at minimum, an annual basis, every September.

CBP received six public submissions in response to the NPRM. One submission was unresponsive and contained no specifics about the NPRM, copyrights, or IPR. The remaining five submissions supported the proposed rule's intent but sought clarifications, raised concerns, and/or made recommendations for improvements. The five submissions each contained multiple comments. The comments have been grouped together below based on the general topic.

Prior to CBP's releasing a sample of imported merchandise pursuant to § 133.21, § 133.25, § 133.42, or § 133.47, for suspected infringement of a recorded mark or recorded copyright or suspected circumvention of a copyright protection measure, proposed 19 CFR 113.70 required the owner of the recorded mark or the recorded copyright to furnish a single transaction bond to CBP. The bond was required in the amount specified by CBP and was required to contain the bond conditions set forth in proposed § 113.70, including an agreement to only use the sample for the limited purpose of assisting CBP in enforcing IPR and an agreement to indemnify the importer or owner for any improper use of the sample.

Comment: Two commenters requested that CBP also permit the right holder to furnish a continuous bond. The commenters stated that continuous bonds are more efficient in terms of simplified tracking and administration, more economical, ease the burden of underwriting, reduce the administrative burden on CBP, and further CBP's overall strategy to facilitate trade. One of the commenters further noted that CBP has in the past allowed continuous bonds when samples of merchandise were sought for examination or testing.

Response: CBP agrees with the commenters and recognizes that some owners of a recorded mark or recorded copyright may prefer a continuous bond for reasons of efficiency, economy, or underwriting. Thus, CBP is amending the language in proposed § 113.70 to permit the owner of the recorded mark or the recorded copyright to furnish to CBP either a single transaction bond or a continuous bond, in the amount specified by CBP and containing the conditions listed, when obtaining a sample of the merchandise.

Comment: One commenter requested that CBP amend § 113.70 to remove references to post-seizure disclosures or procedures. The commenter noted that the use of the term “suspected” in the heading and text of proposed 19 CFR 113.70, which specifically states that the bond conditions apply when a right holder obtains a sample of imported merchandise “suspected of infringing recorded marks or recorded copyrights, or circumventing copyright protection measures,” demonstrates that the bond conditions in § 113.70 are only intended to apply in a pre-seizure context. Since proposed § 113.70 contains general citations to §§ 133.21, 133.42, and 133.47, the commenter noted that the bond requirement and conditions apply in a both pre-seizure and post-seizure context because §§ 133.21(f), 133.42(f), and 133.47(f) address post-seizure disclosures and procedures. The commenter further asserted that TFTEA does not provide statutory authority for imposing the § 113.70 bond conditions, including an agreement to use the sample for the limited purpose of assisting CBP, in a post-seizure context because TFTEA only addresses CBP's authority to provide samples to right holders when doing so would assist CBP in determining whether the merchandise is being imported in violation of the IPR laws. The commenter pointed out that imported merchandise is only seized after this determination has been made and that this post-seizure context is not addressed in title III of TFTEA.

Response: The proposed amendments to 19 CFR 113.70 were intended to consolidate the IPR sample bond language and conditions, currently contained throughout 19 CFR part 133, in one centralized location. As set forth in existing 19 CFR 133.21(f) and 133.42(e), CBP already requires an IPR sample bond in the post-seizure context, conditioned on indemnifying the importer or owner of the imported merchandise against any loss or damage resulting from the furnishing of the sample by CBP to the right holder. CBP endeavored to incorporate these existing post-seizure bond requirements and conditions in proposed § 113.70. However, CBP agrees with the commenter that, as drafted, the bond conditions proposed in § 113.70 conflate pre-seizure and post-seizure contexts. To avoid confusion and to clarify the bond conditions in a post-seizure context, CBP is amending proposed § 113.70 to revise its heading and to add a new paragraph (b) setting forth the bond requirements and conditions for when CBP provides the owner of a recorded mark or recorded copyright a sample of imported merchandise seized for infringing the recorded mark or copyright, or circumventing a copyright protection measure, including samples provided pursuant to § 133.21(f), § 133.42(f), or § 133.47(f). For additional clarity, CBP is also specifying in any cross-references made to § 113.70 throughout part 133 whether § 113.70(a), containing the bond conditions for merchandise suspected of IPR violations, or § 113.70(b), containing the bond conditions for merchandise seized for IPR violations, is applicable.

Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that proposed § 113.70 does not describe the types of actions that would violate the bond conditions, including what activities are permissible in service of “providing assistance to CBP in enforcing intellectual property rights,” and what actions may be deemed an “improper use” of the sample.

Response: CBP does not believe it is necessary to amend or expand on the bond conditions language in § 113.70(a). The specificity of the bond conditions in § 113.70(a) is consistent with the specificity of the conditions for other types of CBP bonds set forth throughout title 19 of the CFR. Furthermore, section 302(a) of TFTEA states, in part, that CBP may provide the right holder with a sample of the merchandise suspected of violating the IPR laws if CBP determines that the “examination or testing” of the merchandise by the right holder would assist CBP in determining if the merchandise is being imported in violation of the IPR laws. In the pre-seizure context, any activity performed by the owner of the recorded mark or recorded copyright that falls outside the scope of determining the authenticity of the sample would constitute an improper use of the sample and would violate the § 113.70(a) bond conditions.

Comment: One commenter stated that the bond conditions in proposed § 113.70, which limit the sample's use, could be construed as prohibiting a right holder from providing relevant information gleaned from its examination to law enforcement agencies other than CBP, or from pursuing civil enforcement of the right holder's legitimate rights authorized elsewhere under Federal or State law. The commenter sought clarification on this issue. This commenter also objected to CBP's not including in proposed §§ 133.21(f), 133.42(f), and 133.47(f), language specifying that another use that the sample may be utilized for is “in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for infringement,” particularly given that this specific language is included in existing §§ 133.21(f) and 133.42(e).

Response: The bond conditions that limit the sample's use, as set forth in proposed § 113.70, only apply in a pre-seizure context. Pursuant to CBP's statutory authority in section 302 of TFTEA, for merchandise suspected of being imported in violation of the IPR laws, the sample may only be used by the right holder for the limited purpose of providing assistance to CBP in enforcing IPR. Thus, as explained above, in the pre-seizure context, any activity performed or disclosure made by the right holder that falls outside the scope of determining the authenticity of the sample would constitute an improper use of the sample and violate the § 113.70(a) bond conditions. This restriction is necessary since, at the time that CBP is furnishing the sample to the right holder, the imported merchandise is only suspected of IPR infringement or circumvention and therefore, it would be inappropriate for the right holder to provide information gleaned from its examination of the sample to law enforcement agencies other than CBP, or from pursuing civil enforcement under Federal or State law.

However, a right holder may use a sample obtained after the merchandise is seized for violations of the IPR laws for purposes other than assisting CBP. To provide clarification on this issue, CBP is adding a new paragraph (b) to § 113.70 to provide less restrictive bond conditions in the post-seizure context, including those related to other uses such as a civil remedy for infringement. CBP is also amending the post-seizure disclosure provisions in §§ 133.21(f), 133.42(f), and 133.47(f), as requested by the commenter, to explicitly state that samples released by CBP post-seizure may be used in pursuit of a related private civil remedy for infringement.

Comment: Two commenters asserted that there is a lack of clarity regarding the amount of the bond because the proposed language in § 113.70 and part 133 states that the bond will be in the “amount specified by CBP.” One of the commenters stated that this broad language appears to allow bond valuations based on highly speculative claims of loss or damage, which the commenter believes would discourage right holders from requesting samples. This commenter recommended that the bond be formulated only on provable harm that may arise from the importer's loss of the physical sample and that, for any indirect injury because of misuse of the sample, the importer should seek recourse in the courts, not with CBP. The other commenter sought clarity on the amount of the bond and whether the bond amounts would remain at the current levels, which the commenter stated are set at the value of the sample (typically $100), to secure the importer from any damage to the sample while in possession of the right holder, or if the bond amounts would dramatically increase due to the bond's now securing against any loss or damage resulting from improper use of the sample. This commenter also requested information on the range of criteria appropriate for setting bond amounts.

Response: CBP disagrees that there is a lack of clarity regarding the amount of the bond. CBP will specify the amount of the bond based on the same standard CBP bond requirements and parameters that CBP uses to determine the amount of its other bonds, as set forth in § 113.13. Section 113.13 governs the amount of any CBP bond, unless expressly exempt by law or other regulation, including setting the minimum amount of the bond, providing guidelines for determining the amount of the bond, requiring periodic review of the bond sufficiency, and providing CBP authority to require additional security if CBP determines the bond is not sufficient. In accordance with § 113.13(a), while the minimum amount of an IPR sample bond is $100, as noted by the commenter, the bond amount assessment is based on the domestic value of the sample, or $100, whichever is greater. This determination has been the long-standing policy of CBP when setting bond amounts in the post-seizure context. Regarding the criteria for setting pre-seizure bond amounts, CBP takes the particular circumstances of each situation into account when making its determination using the guidelines set forth in § 113.13(b). Numerous factors, including but not limited to, the nature of the merchandise at issue, the value of the merchandise, including the size of the shipment, and CBP's prior dealings with the principal will inform CBP's decision in setting the bond amount. It is essential to CBP's operations that CBP be able to retain flexibility in establishing the appropriate bond amount.

Comment: One commenter requested that CBP revise proposed § 113.70 to clarify that the bond will be returned when the imported merchandise at issue is determined to violate the right holder's IPR. This commenter stated that while the existing § 113.70 makes clear that the right holder's bond will be returned where the goods at issue are ultimately determined to violate the right holder's IPR, the proposed § 113.70 does not contain similar language. The commenter stated that, as drafted, the proposed regulations could lead to the forfeiture of the bond even when CBP determines that the goods were counterfeit or piratical.

Response: CBP disagrees with this commenter's suggestion. The commenter's bond description and stated concerns are addressing a bond required to pursue a disputed determination of copyright infringement that is in the existing regulations in §§ 113.70, 133.43, and 133.44, not the IPR sample bond that is contained in proposed § 113.70. The existing regulations require the right holder to furnish a bond under § 133.43(d)(1) to pursue a copyright infringement determination. Existing § 113.70 is currently a bond to indemnify the United States if CBP detains any articles alleged by the principal to be a piratical copy of material covered by the principal's copyright pending a final determination and to hold the United States harmless from any material depreciation, loss, or damage to the articles if it is determined that the goods are not piratical. Section 133.44(a) states that this bond will be returned to the right holder if the articles at issue are ultimately determined to violate the right holder's IPR. However, as explained in the NPRM, CBP believes that these procedures, including the bond, are an outdated and inefficient mechanism to address situations where CBP has a suspicion that certain goods may be piratical, therefore, CBP is removing §§ 133.43 and 133.44 in their entirety from title 19 of the CFR. Additionally, as noted in the NPRM, because CBP is removing §§ 133.43 and 133.44, CBP is revising the related provision in § 113.70, which currently sets forth the bond conditions for detention of copyrighted material. CBP is revising § 113.70, as proposed in the NPRM and finalized in this rule, to set forth, in one centralized location, the bond conditions for a right holder to obtain samples of imported merchandise suspected of infringing the right holder's IPR.

If the conditions of the IPR sample bond, as provided for in revised § 113.70(a)(1), are violated, CBP may make a demand on the bond, even if CBP ultimately determines that the imported merchandise violates the right holder's IPR. To clarify the IPR sample bond conditions, particularly with regard to the timing of the sample return requirements and to ensure that a bond is not incorrectly forfeited, CBP is amending the language proposed in § 113.70. As discussed above, proposed § 113.70 is being revised to address the pre-seizure context in paragraph (a) and the post-seizure context in paragraph (b). In the pre-seizure context, CBP is revising the language proposed to state that the sample must be returned upon demand by CBP or at the conclusion of any examination, testing, or similar procedure performed on the sample, whichever occurs sooner. In the post-seizure context, CBP is adding language to state that the sample must be returned upon demand by CBP or at the conclusion of any examination, testing, or other use, whichever occurs sooner.

If the sample, in either a pre-seizure or post-seizure context, is not returned to CBP by the right holder, the IPR sample bond is forfeited regardless of whether the merchandise is determined to violate IPR.

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed language added to the definition of “piratical article” in § 133.42(a), which states that the copy or phonorecord must be “of a recorded copyright work, importation of which is prohibited by the Copyright Act of 1976,” is too narrowly tailored. The commenter asserted that CBP enforces copyrights at the border so long as the work is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and that the proposed definition seems to exclude works not recorded with CBP.

Response: CBP disagrees that “piratical articles” is too narrowly defined. Section 302 of TFTEA (19 U.S.C. 1628a(c)) explicitly limits its authority to apply only to merchandise suspected of infringing a trademark or copyright that is recorded with CBP. Accordingly, works not recorded with CBP are excluded from the procedures set forth in § 133.42.

Comment: Two commenters requested that CBP revise the definition of “copyright protection measure” in proposed § 133.47(a)(1) to include copy controls. Copy controls, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1), prohibit the importation of technologies, products, or services that circumvent a technological protection measure that effectively protects the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. The commenters asserted that the proposed definition, as drafted, only applies to the seizure and forfeiture of imported merchandise that circumvents access controls, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2), prohibiting the importation of technologies, products, or services that circumvent a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. They stated that to ensure that CBP fully implements TFTEA and to ensure effective border enforcement against all unlawfully imported circumvention devices, the definition of “copyright protection measure” in § 133.47(a)(1) must also include copy controls. The commenters noted that Congress enacted section 303 of TFTEA to explicitly authorize CBP to seize and forfeit merchandise that is prohibited under both 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1). Both commenters provided language that they requested CBP use to amend the definition of “copyright protection measure.”

Response: CBP agrees that the definition of “copyright protection measure” in § 133.47(a)(1) should include copy controls. Section 303(a) of TFTEA amended section 596(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(2)) by adding a new subparagraph (G), which states that the merchandise may be seized and forfeited if CBP determines it is a technology, product, service, device, component, or part whose importation is prohibited under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2) or (b)(1). Since copy controls are set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(b)(1), CBP is amending the definition of “copyright protection measure” to include copy controls. While the language the two commenters suggested differs in form, it is substantially similar, therefore, CBP is adopting the more concise language suggested and is adding “or effectively protects a right of a copyright owner in,” to the definition of “copyright protection measure” in § 133.47(a)(1).

From the time merchandise is presented for examination, CBP may disclose to the right holder certain limited importation information, as listed in proposed §§ 133.21(b)(4), 133.42(b)(4), and 133.47(b)(4), to obtain assistance in determining whether the merchandise is being imported in violation of the IPR laws.

Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed amendments to §§ 133.21(b)(4), 133.42(b)(4), and 133.47(b)(4) shifted CBP's disclosure of limited importation information to the right holder from a mandatory disclosure (“CBP will release the information”) to a permissive disclosure (“CBP may release the information”). The commenter requested that CBP revert to a mandatory disclosure using the language “CBP will release the information,” as required in the existing CBP regulations at 19 CFR 133.21(b)(4).

Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. CBP believes that the limited information disclosures provided for in §§ 133.21(b)(4), 133.42(b)(4), and 133.47(b)(4) should remain, as proposed, permissive. Based on CBP's experience and right holders' feedback, the disclosure of limited importation information at this stage of the determination process does not provide a significant benefit. The limited importation information that CBP may disclose only includes the date of importation, the port of entry, description and quantity of the imported merchandise, and the country of origin. While this data may have been beneficial in the past when supply chains were less complex, the current reality of multi-faceted and global supply chains limits the value of this limited importation information. In today's trade environment, supply chains often involve multiple countries of origin, possible transshipment, as well as used, refurbished, or gray market merchandise. The comprehensive importation information disclosure provided to the right holder post-seizure in §§ 133.21(e), 133.42(e), and 133.47(e) is of significantly greater value and benefit. As such, CBP has determined that it is a better use of CBP resources, and of greater value to right holders, to provide more information later in the process, when appropriate, as opposed to less information sooner in the process, when it may not be as useful to the right holder and when the information disclosure requires significant expenditure of CBP resources.

Comment: A commenter stated that, as drafted, proposed § 133.21(b)(4) is silent regarding CBP's ability to disclose the limited importation information in a scenario where the information was not disclosed prior to the issuance of the notice of detention and the information is available at the time the notice of detention is issued. In the existing CBP regulations, § 133.21(b)(4) describes this scenario and states that where CBP does not disclose this information to the right holder prior to issuance of the notice of detention, CBP will do so concurrently with the issuance of the notice of detention. However, the commenter pointed out that proposed § 133.21(b)(4) only describes a scenario where the information is unavailable at the time the notice of detention is issued.

Response: CBP agrees that proposed § 133.21(b)(4), as well as proposed §§ 133.42(b)(4), and 133.47(b)(4), do not contain all the scenarios under which CBP may choose to disclose the limited importation information to the right holder. Please note that while §§ 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A), 133.42(b)(2)(i)(A), and 133.47(b)(2)(i)(A) address the scenario where CBP may have previously disclosed the information prior to the issuance of the notice of detention or where CBP may disclose the information no later than the date of issuance of the notice of detention, these regulatory sections' intended purpose is to provide notice to the importer of the possible disclosure of its information and not to provide CBP authority to disclose this information to the right holders. Accordingly, CBP is amending the language proposed in §§ 133.21(b)(4), 133.42(b)(4), and 133.47(b)(4) to address all the circumstances where CBP may permissively disclose the limited importation information, including that CBP may release such information prior to the issuance of the notice of detention, concurrently with the notice of detention, or, if the information is unavailable at the time the notice of detention is issued, CBP may release the information after issuance of the notice of detention.

CBP also notes that there is an inadvertent inconsistency between the third sentence in proposed § 133.21(b)(4) and the third sentence in proposed §§ 133.42(b)(4) and 133.47(b)(4). Specifically, CBP inadvertently did not propose to amend the third sentence of § 133.21(b)(4) in the NPRM, thereby leaving the regulatory language unchanged, which provides for a mandatory disclosure. To correct this error, CBP is amending the third sentence of § 133.21(b)(4) to state that CBP may permissively disclose the listed information. This amendment will correct the inadvertent error, align the third sentence of this paragraph with the permissive information disclosure proposed in the NPRM for the remainder of proposed § 133.21(b)(4), and ensure that the same permissive information disclosure is used for disclosures to owners of a recorded mark (§ 133.21), owners of a recorded copyright (§ 133.42), and owners of a recorded copyright, who employ a copyright protection measure that may have been circumvented or attempted to be circumvented by articles that violate the importation prohibitions of the DMCA (eligible persons in § 133.47).

Comment: A commenter also pointed out that there is a conflict between proposed § 133.21(b)(4), which contains a permissive information disclosure, and existing § 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A), which CBP did not propose to amend in the NPRM and contains a mandatory information disclosure.

Response: CBP agrees with the commenter. The commenter has correctly pointed out an inconsistency between proposed § 133.21(b)(4) and existing § 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A). Without a regulatory amendment, § 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A) would require CBP to provide notice to the importer that CBP has, or will, perform a mandatory information disclosure to the right holder of the same limited importation information that CBP has the authority to choose to disclose or to not disclose as needed, per proposed § 133.21(b)(4). This inconsistency was inadvertent and also created an inconsistency between existing § 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A) and the proposed §§ 133.42(b)(2)(i)(A) and 133.47(b)(2)(i)(A), which were intended to be parallel provisions to ensure the same treatment. Accordingly, CBP is amending § 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A) to reflect the language used in §§ 133.42(b)(2)(i)(A) and 133.47(b)(2)(i)(A) and changing § 133.21(b)(2)(i)(A) from an unintended mandatory disclosure to an intended permissive disclosure. This amendment makes the CBP regulations consistent across contexts and provides clarity on the issue raised by the commenter.

Comment: A commenter requested that CBP amend § 133.42(b)(4) to add additional disclosures to the limited importation information that CBP may disclose to the owner of the recorded copyright to obtain assistance in determining whether an imported article is a piratical article. The commenter suggested that CBP also provide the owner of the recorded copyright with the origin of the shipment, including the sender and the owner of the merchandise, and the destination of the shipment, in order to assist the owner in identifying entities engaged in counterfeiting and trace the origin of the infringing goods.

Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. CBP may disclose limited importation information when CBP believes that the right holder may assist CBP in determining whether the article is a piratical article. When CBP seeks authentication assistance from the right holder under § 133.42(b)(4), CBP is seeking information about the article itself, namely, whether the physical characteristics of the article indicate authenticity or inauthenticity. Given the complexity of supply chains and the legitimate trade of gray market and used goods, CBP notes that information concerning the sender and the recipient of the shipment should not form the basis of an authenticity determination by the right holder. Also, as explained above, in today's current global supply chain environment, this importation information is of limited value to the right holder. Additionally, the information that the commenter requested is disclosed to the owner of the recorded copyright post-seizure pursuant to § 133.42(e).

Comment: One commenter stated that the language “if CBP concludes that the disclosure would assist CBP in its determination” in proposed §§ 133.21(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3), 133.42(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3), and 133.47(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) is ambiguous and recommended that CBP amend the regulatory language to create a presumption that the disclosure would assist CBP in its IPR enforcement mission. The commenter stated that after CBP provides notice of detention to the importer of CBP's suspicion that the goods are counterfeit or piratical, there are only two possible scenarios: the importer either fails to respond entirely or the importer provides additional information to CBP that might be considered when CBP makes its determination. The commenter asserted that, under both possible scenarios, the right holder's examination of the merchandise would greatly assist CBP in its determination and that a presumption that the information disclosure would assist CBP in its determination is warranted.

Response: CBP disagrees. CBP does not have the statutory authority for such a presumption, which would require CBP to abdicate its role in making a determination as to the information disclosure's utility, in direct conflict with title III of TFTEA. Section 302(a) of TFTEA explicitly restricts CBP's ability to provide unredacted information disclosures and samples to situations in which CBP determines that the examination or testing of the merchandise by the right holder would assist CBP in determining whether the imported merchandise is in violation of the IPR laws. The language in §§ 133.21(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3), 133.42(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3), and 133.47(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) mirrors this statutory language.

Pursuant to existing § 133.21(c)(1), proposed § 133.42(c)(1), and proposed § 133.47(c)(1), when CBP discloses information prior to seizure, CBP will notify the right holder that some or all of the information being released may be subject to the protections of the Trade Secrets Act, and that CBP is only disclosing the information for the purpose of assisting CBP in determining whether the merchandise bears a counterfeit mark for purposes of existing § 133.21(c)(1), in determining whether the merchandise is a piratical article for purposes of proposed § 133.42(c)(1), or in determining whether the merchandise violates the DMCA for purposes of proposed § 133.47(c)(1).

Comment: One commenter requested that CBP remove the references to the Trade Secrets Act in existing § 133.21(c)(1), proposed § 133.42(c)(1), and proposed § 133.47(c)(1), which set forth the conditions of disclosure for unredacted information and samples. The commenter provided two reasons for the requested removal of references to the Trade Secrets Act. Firstly, the commenter noted that the Trade Secrets Act only prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information and the inclusion of the reference to the Trade Secrets Act is unnecessary because TFTEA specifically authorizes the disclosure of this information. Secondly, the commenter stated that the inclusion of the Trade Secrets Act reference could be construed as implying a threat of legal liability if the right holder uses the information disclosed for any purpose other than assisting CBP in the stated purpose, and the commenter asserted that the Trade Secrets Act does not restrict the subsequent use of the disclosed information by a third party.

Response: CBP disagrees and does not believe that the references to the Trade Secrets Act should be removed from §§ 133.21(c)(1), 133.42(c)(1), and 133.47(c)(1). Title III of TFTEA only authorizes disclosures in a pre-seizure context for a specific purpose, which is assisting CBP in making the relevant determination of whether the imported merchandise violates the IPR laws. Using the disclosed information in the pre-seizure context beyond the scope of what is authorized by TFTEA is impermissible and the references to the Trade Secrets Act in these sections provide notice to the right holder of the limited permissible use.

Pursuant to existing and proposed §§ 133.21(b), 133.42(b), and 133.47(b), CBP must notify the importer via a notice of detention that the importer's merchandise was detained and that the importer has seven business days from the notification to establish that the merchandise does not violate the IPR laws. Prior to and during those seven business days, CBP may only provide the limited importation information set forth in §§ 133.21(b)(4), 133.42(b)(4), and 133.47(b)(4) or the redacted photographs, images, or samples described in §§ 133.21(b)(5), 133.42(b)(5), and 133.47(b)(5) to the right holder. In accordance with §§ 133.21(b)(2)(ii), 133.42(b)(2)(ii), and 133.47(b)(2)(ii), CBP may disclose to the right holder information that appears on the detained merchandise and/or its retail packaging, including unredacted photographs, images, or samples, if the importer fails to respond within those seven business days or provides insufficient information to demonstrate that the merchandise does not violate the IPR laws.

Comment: One commenter recommended that CBP reassess the current bifurcated disclosure process in 19 CFR part 133. The commenter requested that CBP remove the seven-business-day response period process throughout 19 CFR part 133 because the commenter believes that this process has been overturned by the passage of title III of TFTEA and other actions taken by the government and that this process serves to impede efficient enforcement while failing to advance any legitimate interests of importers.

Response: CBP disagrees with the commenter. CBP has not observed any impediment to its enforcement efforts. The process of providing the importer with a notice of detention and a seven-business-day response period safeguards the importer's information from unnecessary disclosures. The Trade Secrets Act protects those required to furnish commercial or financial information to the government by shielding them from the competitive disadvantage that could result from disclosure of that information by the government, including importers whose merchandise is suspected of violating the IPR laws. These importers must be afforded due process to dispute this suspicion and provide information within the seven-business-day response period to prove that their detained merchandise is not violative before CBP discloses unredacted information and samples to the right holder. The Trade Secrets Act permits those covered by the Act to disclose protected information when the disclosure is otherwise “authorized by law” which includes both statutes expressly authorizing disclosure and properly promulgated regulations authorizing disclosure based on a valid statutory interpretation. See Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 294-316 (1979). Section 302 of TFTEA expressly authorizes disclosure of unredacted images and samples of the merchandise in a pre-seizure context only when such a disclosure would assist CBP in making a determination of the authenticity of the merchandise. To make such a determination, CBP requires the seven-business-day response period to appropriately assess the information available to CBP and decide whether an unredacted disclosure to the right holder would assist CBP in its authenticity determination.

Comment: Two commenters noted that proposed § 133.47(b)(2)(iii) states that eligible persons may apply to receive post-seizure disclosures from CBP when injured by violations of the DMCA by attaching a letter requesting such disclosures to an application to record a copyright. The commenters expressed concern that, as drafted, the proposed regulatory language appears to apply only prospectively. They stated that this raises concerns about the status of copyright registrations previously recorded with CBP and questioned whether CBP intended for copyrights to be recorded again in order for the right holder to qualify as an eligible person (and therefore, an injured person) for purposes of post-seizure disclosures. One commenter requested that CBP add language to § 133.47(b)(2)(iii) allowing owners of previously recorded copyrights to similarly apply for protection by submitting a letter requesting such disclosures and also requested that CBP permit a letter to be submitted during a request for renewal of an existing recordation.

Response: CBP agrees that § 133.47(b)(2)(iii) should not be restricted to those right holders recording new copyrights and that owners of current copyright recordations should not be required to re-record their works in order to receive such post-seizure disclosures and be placed on the injured persons list. CBP is amending the language proposed in § 133.47(b)(2)(iii) to allow owners of currently recorded copyrights to apply for protection by submitting a letter to CBP requesting post-seizure disclosures at any time, as long as there is a current relevant recordation with CBP. The application process is described further in section I.C. of the Background discussion above. CBP is also amending § 133.47(b)(2)(iii) by allowing owners of recorded copyrights to apply for DMCA protections by attaching the letter to a request to renew the copyright recordation. CBP reiterates that to qualify as an eligible person, as defined in § 133.47(a)(3), who may apply to CBP to receive DMCA protections, as set forth in § 133.47(b)(2)(iii), that person must have a recorded copyright with CBP upon which the person can claim a harm that the injured status might redress.

In addition to the modifications explained above, CBP is amending §§ 133.21(c)(2), 133.42(c)(2), and 133.47(c)(2) to remove the corresponding cross-references to paragraph (b)(2)(ii). Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) provides the importer notice that its information may be disclosed to the right holder if the importer fails to respond to the notice of detention in paragraph (b)(2)(i) within the seven-business-day response period or if the importer provides an insufficient response to the notice. Thus, it is inaccurate to cite to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) in paragraph (c)(2) as authority for CBP's releasing the unredacted sample. CBP is releasing the unredacted sample pursuant to the regulatory authority in paragraph (b)(3) only. Accordingly, CBP is removing the citation to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) in paragraph (c)(2) and is only citing to the appropriate cross-reference of paragraph (b)(3).

Additionally, CBP is adding the language “if practicable” after “entry after obliteration of the recorded copyright” in § 133.42(g) to clarify that a recorded copyright may only be obliterated in some circumstances. It may not be possible for the importer to obliterate or remove a recorded copyright from the seized merchandise in all circumstances, for example, when the article itself consists of a piratical copy. In § 133.47(g), CBP is removing “entry after obliteration of the recorded copyright” as an option entirely since obliterating the recorded copyright is not an appropriate disposition for articles that violate the DMCA because the article itself consists of the article that violates the DMCA.

In this document, CBP is also correcting the authority section for part 113, adding additional cross-references for clarification purposes, and correcting several cross-references in § 133.47 that inadvertently cited to the definition for “copyright protection measure” (§ 133.47(a)(1)) instead of the definition of “articles that violate the DMCA” (§ 133.47(a)(2)) when referencing articles that are suspected of violating the DMCA.

After careful consideration of the public comments received, for the reasons stated above, as well as the reasons outlined in the NPRM, CBP is adopting as final the NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2019 (84 FR 55251), with the changes described above.

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this regulation.

One of CBP's roles is to safeguard the U.S. economy from the importation of goods that violate intellectual property rights. Under existing regulations, if CBP suspects that a shipment may be violative, it can share redacted information and samples of the suspect imported merchandise with a right holder. 1 To implement title III of TFTEA's IPR provisions, this final rule will, among other things, allow CBP to disclose unredacted information and share unredacted images and samples of suspect imports with right holders, if examination by right holders would assist CBP's determination and provided that these disclosures would not compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation or national security.

Disclosing this unredacted information and sharing these unredacted samples and images with right holders may provide access to information about the importer protected by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). This final rule establishes a procedure under which, following notice to the importer, the importer has seven business days to establish to CBP that the suspect imports are not violative of the IPR laws, and are instead admissible. If the importer is unable to demonstrate the admissibility of its imports within this timeframe, CBP will share information with the right holder by disclosing the information or releasing unredacted samples of the imports in question.

As CBP is establishing a new process for copyrights, it does not have data on the number of times CBP suspects shipments are violative of the copyright laws or piratical articles. However, on September 24, 2012, CBP published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 24375) that established similar procedures for trademarks. For analytical purposes, CBP can assume that this final rule has similar effects after adjusting for the differing volumes. CBP subject matter experts estimate that CBP sends out an average of 824 detention letters every fiscal year for suspected trademark infringements. Based on the proportion of live trademark recordations  2 available to support the agency's IPR seizures every fiscal year, relative to the copyright recordations, CBP estimates an average of approximately 21,423 seizures based on trademark, 8,881 based on copyright, and 116 DMCA seizures. If the number of detention letters is proportional to the number of seizures, CBP estimates that this final rule will result in 345 more detention letters for possible copyright-infringing importations. Similarly, by using the number of seizures related to DMCA as a proportion of total trademark seizures, CBP estimates that this final rule will result in four detention letters for possible DMCA-infringing importations.

CBP estimates that the procedure to demonstrate that the imports are not piratical will take two hours per affected importer at a cost of $34.81 per hour. 3   4 This is based on the existing information collection for the Notice of Detention (OMB Control Number 1651-0073), which is being updated for this rulemaking. CBP estimates that importers will bear an opportunity cost as a result of the higher number of detention notices caused by this rule. CBP estimates that this opportunity cost will total $24,019 (345 * 2 * $34.81) for copyright detentions and $278 (4 * 2 * $34.81) for DMCA detentions for a total monetized cost of $24,297. CBP received no comments from the public regarding the estimated time cost to importers of two hours to respond.

This final rule will also formalize the existing practices used to enforce the DMCA. In 1998, Congress enacted the DMCA. The DMCA prohibits the importation of devices used to circumvent the copyright protection measures copyright owners use to protect their works. Although current regulations do not specifically provide for detention and seizure of articles that constitute violations of the DMCA, CBP has enforced the DMCA by providing CBP personnel with internal enforcement guidelines and advice on how to enforce DMCA violations. CBP subject matter experts estimate that there are approximately 116 DMCA seizures. It is possible that this final rule will result in a small increase in DMCA seizures. TFTEA requires CBP to formalize the foregoing processes with respect to the DMCA. The formalization of these existing practices in regulations does not change current practice, so this provision will not have additional impacts if this rule is finalized.

In addition to the release of unredacted samples, this final rule will amend the detention procedures applicable to imported articles that are suspected of being a piratical copy or phonorecord of a copyrighted work. The current detention procedures in the regulations allow up to 120 days for an importer or right holder of a suspect article to provide CBP with evidence, briefs, or other pertinent information to substantiate a claim or denial of infringement, prior to CBP's issuance of an admissibility determination. To expedite this process, this final rule will amend the regulations to require the agency to render an admissibility decision within 30 days from the date the articles are presented to CBP for examination. As the current detention procedures are seldom used, according to CBP subject matter experts, CBP does not believe this final rule will impose a significant effect on the public. During the public comment period, no comments were received regarding this statement.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. ) (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires agencies to assess the impact of regulations on small entities. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). Section 604 of the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless the agency certifies under section 605(b) that the regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As described in the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 analysis above, CBP estimates that this final rule will result in the issuance of 345 additional notices of detention. CBP's current examination policies, use of shared enforcement systems, and targeting criteria that take into account previous examinations when determining risk make it unlikely that an importer who receives a notice of detention with this rule will be required to repeatedly prove the admissibility of its imports. 5 As such, CBP assumes for the purposes of this analysis that the number of affected importers from this final rule will be equal to the number of additional detention notices resulting from this final rule—345—with each importer receiving only one detention notice. To the extent that an importer must prove the admissibility of its imports more than once as a result of this rule, the number of importers affected by this final rule would be lower and the cost of this final rule per affected importer would be higher. During the public comment period, no comments were received regarding this assumption.

These importers are not centered in any particular industry; any importer of goods covered by a recorded copyright may be affected by this rule if CBP has a reason to believe the importer's merchandise may constitute a piratical copy and CBP cannot determine if an import is a piratical copy or prohibited circumvention device without the use of the provisions of this rule. CBP has conducted a study of importers to determine how many are small entities and has concluded that the vast majority (about 91 percent) of importers are small entities. 6 Therefore, CBP believes this final rule may affect a substantial number of small entities.

Although the final rule may affect a substantial number of small entities, CBP believes the economic impact would not be significant. As described in the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 section of this document, CBP estimates that it takes an importer two hours to provide proof of the admissibility of an import to CBP. CBP estimates the average wage of an importer is $34.81 per hour. Thus, CBP estimates it will cost a small entity $69.62 to prove the admissibility of its import with this final rule. CBP does not believe $69.62 constitutes a significant economic impact.

CBP recognizes that repeated inquiries into the admissibility of an importer's imports could eventually rise to the level of a significant economic impact. However, it is unlikely that importers will be repeatedly required to prove the admissibility of their imports, as previously mentioned. Additionally, CBP does not anticipate law-abiding importers to be subject to the provisions in this rule on a repeated basis. Once CBP has determined the admissibility of an importation, it will record that information in the system so it can be viewed by CBP import specialists on future importations and successful previous importations are a favorable factor in the importation's risk profile. Further, CBP notes that providing this information to CBP is optional on the part of the importer, although not providing admissibility information to CBP may result in the goods being seized. Therefore, CBP believes there will not be a significant economic impact on small entities.

Accordingly, although this final rule may have an effect on a substantial number of small entities, as discussed above, CBP believes that an estimated cost of $69.62 to an importer does not constitute a significant economic impact. Thus, CBP certifies this regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the collections of information for this document are included in an existing collection for Notices of Detention (OMB control number 1651-0073). An agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The burden hours related to the Notice of Detention for OMB control number 1651-0073 are as follows:

Number of Respondents: 1,695.

Number of Responses: 1.

Time per Response: 2 hours.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,390.

Because CBP estimates that the availability of the procedures in this final rule will increase the number of Notices of Detention issued for IPR violations, there is an increase in burden hours under this collection with this final rule.

This rulemaking is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or that of his or her delegate) to approve regulations concerning copyright enforcement.

Troy A. Miller, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign the document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons stated above, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of the Treasury amends 19 CFR parts 113, 133, 148, 151, and 177 as set forth below:

In a final rule published April 18, 2024, at 89 FR 28218, MSHA amended the Agency's existing standards to better protect miners against occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica, a significant health hazard, and to improve respiratory protection for miners from exposure to airborne contaminants. This document corrects parts of the rule's preamble. Some general typographical errors occurred in publication, which the Office of the Federal Register was able to correct without publishing a correcting amendment, including misrepresenting a reserved paragraph (c) in § 70.208T, which was correctly incorporated into the CFR on June 17, 2024, the April rule's effective date.

In (FR Doc. 2024-06920) appearing on page 28218 in the Federal Register of Thursday, April 18, 2024), the following corrections are made:

1. On page 28218, in the first column, the SUMMARY is corrected to read “The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is amending its existing standards to better protect miners against occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica, a significant health hazard, and to improve respiratory protection for miners from exposure to airborne contaminants. MSHA is establishing a uniform permissible exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica at 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m 3 ) for a full-shift exposure, calculated as an 8-hour time-weighted average, for all miners. MSHA's final rule also includes other requirements to protect miner health, such as exposure sampling, corrective actions to be taken when a miner's exposure exceeds the permissible exposure limit, and medical surveillance for metal and nonmetal mines.”

2. On page 28264, in the first column, in the first complete paragraph, the sentence, “In general form, the relative rate model was: Rate = exp(α 0 ) × ƒ(E), where exp(a 0 ) is the background rate and E is the cumulative respirable crystalline silica exposure.” is corrected to read, “In general form, the relative rate model was: Rate = exp(α 0 ) × ƒ(E), where exp (α 0 ) is the background rate and E is the cumulative respirable crystalline silica exposure.”

3. On page 28299, “Table VII-4: Percentage Distribution of Respirable Crystalline Silica Exposures as ISO 8-hour TWA in the Coal Industry from 2016 to 2021, by Location” is removed and “Table VII-10: Estimated Annualized Compliance Costs as Percent of Mine Revenues (in millions of 2022 dollars), by Sector” is added in its place to read as follows:

On March 4, 2024, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting an annual high speed boat race from 8 a.m. to noon on June 21, 2024. The boat race is to be held in the waters of Clear Lake, in Clear Creek, TX. The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race will be a safety concern for anyone within the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone, and Shut-Down Zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. In response, on May 14, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local regulation; Clear Lake, Clear Creek, TX (89 FR 41914). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this boat race. During the comment period that ended June 13, 2024, we received 1 comment.

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 is impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the power boat race being held on June 21, 2024.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041 The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race in Clear Lake, TX, will be a safety concern for anyone within the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone, and Shut-Down Zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within these areas during the power boat race.

As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published May 14, 2024. However, the concerns were unrelated to the proposed revisions and outside the scope of Coast Guard authority. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The COTP is establishing a special local regulation from 8 a.m. to noon on a Friday of the third week of June. The special local regulation will encompass five different zones to include the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone, Shut-Down Zone, and the Spectator Zone as described below:

Pre-Stage Zone: This area is the pre-staging area for participating vessels to line up. It will include all waters within the following areas 29°33.13 N, 095°01.84 W thence to 29°33.12 N, 095°01.89 W thence to 29°33.23 N, 095°01.96 W thence to 29°33.13 N, 095°01.84 W.

Approach Zone: 1/4 mile distance required for participating vessels to obtain the minimum 40 mph requirement for course entry. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°33.256 N, 095°01.89 W and end at approximately 29°33.33 N, 095°02.15 W.

Course Run Zone: 3/4 mile distance where participating vessels will conduct their high-speed run. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°33.33 N, 095°02.16 W and end at approximately 29°33.53 N, 095°02.98 W.

Shut-Down Zone: 1 mile distance where participating vessels will be allowed to slow their speeds back to an idle. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°33.53 N, 095°02.98 W and end at approximately 29°33.74 N, 095°04.1 W.

Spectator Zone: All vessels that will be viewing the event will be required to stay within a designated area. The sponsor is responsible for marking the spectator zone with 4 buoys on the outer corners and ensuring that all vessels within the area are anchored and remain in the area during all ongoing high-speed runs. The following coordinates are the approximate location of the Spectator Zone: 29°33.15 N, 95°02.34 W, thence to 29°33.11 N, 95°02.35 W, thence to 29°33.21 N, 95°02.50 W, thence to 29°33.15 N, 95°02.53 W.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the established zones without obtaining permission from the on-water Safety-Officer or designated representative.

The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration and time of day of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small, designated area of Clear Lake for 4 hours during the morning when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no 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 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 affects 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 marine event and special local regulation lasting only 4 hours that will prohibit entry withing 100 feet of the boat course. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 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 100 as follows:

On March 26, 2024, the M/V Dali lost propulsion and allided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in the Chesapeake Bay, near the Port of Baltimore, causing the bridge to collapse upon it. See 89 FR 24385 (April 8, 2024) for additional details about the allision. More recently, the Maryland Pilots Association, LLC has notified the Coast Guard that the M/V Dali will be transiting from the Port of Baltimore to Norfolk, Va. for repairs. The vessel transit is taking place with the assistance of multiple tugboats and will be subject to a safety zone issued by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Maryland-National Capital Region. It is anticipated that the vessel will arrive in Virginia waters on June 22, 2024 and that it will reach Norfolk on June 22, 2024, but these dates are subject to change. Given both the damage to the vessel from the allision, and the vessel's mechanical history, including the loss of propulsion which led to the allision, a 500-yard safety zone will abut the safety zone in Maryland waters to be enforced during the transit within Virginia waters.

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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. There is insufficient time to provide notice of a proposed rule, take and consider comments, and publish a final rule before June 22, when the rule must be in effect to provide for safety in the navigable waters around the M/V Dali as it arrives in waters subject to this safety zone in transit to Norfolk, Virginia.

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 impracticable because prompt action is needed to respond to the dangers associated with the transit of the M/V DALI.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP, Sector Virginia has determined that potential hazards associated with the transit of the M/V DALI will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the vessel due to its limited ability to maneuver. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the M/V DALI transits through the waters of the COTP Zone, Sector Virginia enroute from the Port of Baltimore to the Port of Norfolk.

This rule establishes a safety zone from June 22, 2024, to June 28, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the M/V DALI while in transit within waters of the COTP Zone, Sector Virginia, from Baltimore to Norfolk. The dates of the safety zone were chosen to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters of the Sector Virginia, COTP Zone before, during, and after the scheduled transit. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone while the vessel transits from Baltimore to Norfolk. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

Because the Coast Guard has determined that this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply to this action.

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 500-yard moving safety zone around a vessel. 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. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 for the Red, White, Blue, and You Fireworks Display/City of Lake Charles safety zone from 9 to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2024. This action is being taken due to the potential hazards associated with the fireworks display at this location that are a safety concern for spectator craft and vessels in the vicinity of the designated fireworks launch location. Table 3 of §  165.801, Item number 7 specifies the approximate location of the safety zone, which is in Lake Charles, LA. As provided in paragraph (a) of §  165.801, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via local notice to mariners and marine information broadcasts.

On April 9, 2024, the Postal Service filed a notice with the PRC in Docket No. R2024-2 of mailing services price adjustments to be effective on July 14, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the Postal Service published notification of proposed price changes in the Federal Register entitled “International Mailing Services: Proposed Price Changes” (89 FR 27403). The notification included the price changes that the Postal Service would adopt for certain services covered by Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, International Mail Manual (IMM®) and publish in Notice 123, Price List, on Postal Explorer® at pe.usps.com. The Postal Service received no comments.

In PRC Order No. 7155 issued on May 30, 2024, in PRC Docket No. R2024-2, the PRC concluded that the international prices in the Postal Service's notice in Docket No. R2024-2 may go into effect on July 14, 2024. The new prices will be posted accordingly in Notice 123, Price List, on Postal Explorer at pe.usps.com.

The price for a single-piece postcard will be $1.65 worldwide, The First-Class Mail International® (FCMI) letter nonmachinable will be $0.46. The FCMI single-piece letter and flat prices will be as follows:

The Postal Service will increase prices for certain market dominant international extra services as noted:

• Certificate of Mailing service: Fees for certificate of mailing service for FCMI will increase as follows:

• Registered Mail Service: The fee for international Registered Mail® service for FCMI will increase to $21.75.

• Return Receipt Service: The fee for international return receipt service for FCMI will increase to $6.10.

• Customs Clearance and Delivery Fee: The Customs Clearance and Fee per dutiable item for Inbound Letter Post letters and flat will increase to $8.85.

• International Business Reply Mail Service: The price for International Business Reply Mail® Service (IBRS) cards will increase to $2.30, and the price for IBRS envelopes (up to 2 ounces) will increase to $2.85.

New prices will be listed in the updated Notice 123, Price List.

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

This action offers certain parties the option of using an available industry standard to conduct all appropriate inquiries. Parties purchasing potentially contaminated properties will be able to use the ASTM E2247-23 standard practice to comply with the all appropriate inquiries requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This action will not require any entity to use this standard. Any party who wants to claim protection from liability under one of CERCLA's landowner liability protections may follow the regulatory requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR part 312, use ASTM's E1527-21 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” or use the standard recognized by this action, the ASTM E2247-23 standard.

Entities potentially affected by this action, or who may choose to use the newly referenced ASTM standard to perform all appropriate inquiries, include public and private parties who, as bona fide prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, or innocent landowners, are purchasing potentially contaminated properties and wish to establish a limitation on CERCLA liability in conjunction with the property purchase. In addition, any entity conducting a site characterization or assessment on a property with a brownfields grant awarded under CERCLA section 104(k)(2)(B)(ii) may be affected by this action. This includes state, local, and Tribal governments that receive brownfields site assessment grants. A summary of the potentially affected industry sectors (by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes) is displayed in the table below.

The list of potentially affected entities in the above table may not be exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a guide for readers regarding those entities that EPA is aware potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in the table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

This rule amends the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule that sets Federal standards for the conduct of “all appropriate inquiries” at 40 CFR part 312. The All Appropriate Inquiries Rule sets forth standards and practices necessary for fulfilling the requirements of CERCLA section 101(35)(B) as required to obtain certain CERCLA liability protections and for conducting site characterizations and assessments with the use of brownfields grants per CERCLA section 104(k)(2)(B)(ii).

On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (“the Brownfields Amendments”). In general, the Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA provide funds to assess and cleanup brownfields sites; clarify existing and establish new CERCLA liability provisions related to certain types of owners of contaminated properties; and provide funding to establish or enhance State and Tribal cleanup programs. The Brownfields Amendments revised some of the provisions of CERCLA section 101(35) and limited liability under section 107 for bona fide prospective purchasers and contiguous property owners, in addition to clarifying the requirements necessary to establish the innocent landowner liability protection under CERCLA. The Brownfields Amendments clarified the requirement that parties purchasing potentially contaminated property undertake “all appropriate inquiries” into prior ownership and use of property before purchasing the property to qualify for protection from CERCLA liability.

The 2002 Brownfields Amendments to CERCLA required EPA to develop regulations establishing standards and practices for how to conduct all appropriate inquiries. EPA promulgated regulations that set standards and practices for all appropriate inquiries on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 66070). In the regulation, EPA referenced, and recognized as compliant with the rule, the ASTM E1527-05 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard Process.” In December 2008, EPA used a direct final rule to amend the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to recognize another ASTM standard as compliant, ASTM E2247-08 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.” Both standards, the ASTM E1527-05 and the ASTM E2247-08, were subsequently revised by ASTM International, and the revised versions were referenced by EPA as compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule. EPA referenced the ASTM E1527-13 standard on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49690), referenced the ASTM E1527-21 Standard on December 15, 2022 (87 FR 76578), and referenced the ASTM E2247-16 standard on September 15, 2017 (82 FR 43310). Currently, the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule (40 CFR part 312) allows for the use of the ASTM E1527-21 standard or the ASTM E2247-16 standard to conduct all appropriate inquiries, in lieu of following requirements included in the Rule.

Recently, ASTM International published a revised standard for conducting Phase I environmental site assessments for forestland or rural properties. This standard, ASTM E2247-23, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Properties,” was reviewed by EPA, and determined by EPA to be compliant with the requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.

On March 12, 2024, EPA published a proposed rule (89 FR 17804) to amend the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference ASTSM E2247-23 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Properties,” and allow for its use to satisfy the requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule. In this document, EPA is finalizing the amendment to the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference the revised ASTM E2247-23 standard. Recognition of the ASTM E2247-16 standard practice will be sunset one year following the publication of this action.

EPA received no comments on the proposed rule published on March 12, 2024.

This rule amends the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to allow for the use of the recently revised ASTM E2247-23 standard to conduct all appropriate inquiries as required under CERCLA for establishing the bona fide prospective purchaser, contiguous property owner, and innocent landowner liability protections.

With this action, parties seeking liability relief under CERCLA's landowner liability protections, as well as recipients of brownfields grants for conducting site assessments, will be considered in compliance with the requirements for all appropriate inquiries if such parties comply with the procedures provided in the ASTM E2247-23, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.” EPA made the determination that the ASTM E2247-23 Standard is compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries regulation after reviewing the elements of the ASTM standard practice and comparing them to the requirements set forth in the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.

Also, as part of this action, to avoid any confusion associated with the Agency's recognition of a historical standard no longer recognized by ASTM International as current, or no longer reflecting its current consensus-based or customary business standard, the Agency will, one year following this action, remove its current recognition of the ASTM E2247-16 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property” as being compliant with the AAI Rule. EPA is providing all parties sufficient notice to become familiar with the updated industry standard (ASTM E2247-23). To provide parties with an adequate opportunity to complete any AAI investigations that may be on-going using the ASTM E2247-16 standard at this time, the Agency is allowing for a set period of one year following this action before removing its recognition of the historic standard (ASTM E2247-16) as compliant with all appropriate inquiries. The sunset period for removal of this recognition from the ASTM E2247-16 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property” is one year from the date of this action.

The Agency notes that this action will not require any party to use the ASTM E2247-23 standard. Any party conducting all appropriate inquiries to comply with CERCLA's bona fide prospective purchaser, contiguous property owner, or innocent landowner liability protections may continue to follow the provisions of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule at 40 CFR part 312, or continue to use the ASTM E1527-21 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard.

This action merely allows for the use of the ASTM E2247-23 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” for those parties purchasing potentially contaminated properties who want to use the ASTM E2247-23 standard in lieu of following specific requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.

This action also includes the removal of the current recognition of the ASTM E2247-16 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments for Forestland or Rural Properties as compliant with all appropriate inquiries from the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule. This recognition of the ASTM E1527-16 standard will be removed from the reference section of the All Appropriate Inquiries rule (40 CFR 312.11) one year following publication of this final rule.

This action includes no changes to the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule other than to add an additional reference to the new ASTM E2247-23 standard and to sunset the reference to the historic ASTM E2247-16 standard.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to OMB review. This action merely amends the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference ASTM International's E2247-23 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” and allow for its use to satisfy the requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries under CERCLA. This action does not impose any requirements on any entity, including small entities. Therefore, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), after considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action does not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments as described in sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not create any new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Because this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action does involve technical standards. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) (NTTAA) apply. The NTTAA was signed into law on March 7, 1996, and, among other things, directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to bring together Federal agencies as well as State and local governments to achieve greater reliance on voluntary consensus standards and decrease dependence on in-house standards. It states that use of such standards, whenever practicable and appropriate, is intended to achieve the following goals: (a) Eliminate the cost to the government of developing its own standards and decrease the cost of goods procured and the burden of complying with agency regulations; (b) provide incentives and opportunities to establish standards that serve national needs; (c) encourage long-term growth for U.S. enterprises and promote efficiency and economic competition through harmonization of standards; and d) further the policy of reliance upon the private sector to supply government needs for goods and services. The Act requires that Federal agencies adopt private sector standards, particularly those developed by standards developing organizations (SDOs), whenever possible in lieu of creating proprietary, non-consensus standards.

This action is compliant with the spirit and requirements of the NTTAA. This action allows for the use of the ASTM International standard known as Standard E2247-23 and entitled “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property.” By taking this action, EPA is fulfilling the intent and requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA submitted a report containing 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 publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 312 as follows:

In FR Doc. 2024-08085 of May 10, 2024 (89 FR 41002), there were typographical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are effective as if they had been included in the Managed Care final rule. Accordingly, the corrections are effective July 9, 2024.

On page 41003, Table 1: Applicability Dates,

a. We made a typographical error in the applicability date for §§ 438.6(c)(2)(vi)(C)( 3 ) and ( 4 ); 438.6(c)(2)(viii); 438.6(c)(5)(i) through (iv); 438.10(c)(3); 438.68(d)(1)(iii); 438.68(d)(2); 438.207(b)(3) and (d)(2); 438.602(g)(5)-(13); 457.1207 (transparency provisions); 457.1218 (network adequacy standards); 457.1230(b); 457.1285 (transparency) by omitting a space between the words “after” and “July.”

b. We used wording in the applicability date for § 438.6(c)(4) that did not match the applicability date in regulation text.

On page 41004, Table 1, Applicability Dates, we made a typographical error in the applicability date for §§ 438.505(a)(1); 457.1240(d) by not deleting the placeholder for the effective date and inserting the actual date.

On page 41119, we made a punctuation error in “State directed payment-” by not deleting the unnecessary hyphen.

On page 41123,

a. We made a typographical error in the phrase “has standardized process” by omitting an “a”.

b. We made a typographical error in the phrase “specific MLR report” by omitting an “s”.

On page 41130, we made a typographical error and omitted “of the final rule.”.

On page 41139, we made a typographical error by omitting “of” before “an overpayment”.

On page 41168, we inadvertently used semicolons instead of periods in the sentence referencing § 438.16(e)(2)(iii)(A), (B), and (C); used a colon after “approval;” included “or” before “(C);” and omitted a space between “paragraph” and “(e)”.

On page 41245, we made a typographical error by inadvertently including “private sector” and omitting “State” when referencing the last annual burden in Estimate 13 for Medicaid and quality rating system measure collection. We also inadvertently omitted the CHIP burden estimates at the end of the paragraph.

On page 41254, in Table 6, Summary of CHIP Requirements and Burden, we made a typographical error by inadvertently excluding a CHIP-specific entry for “457.1240(d) QRS optional methodology implementation extension”.

On page 41255, in Table 6, Summary of CHIP Requirements and Burden, the figures in the “Total” entry are incorrect.

On page 41256, in Table 7, Summary of Medicaid and CHIP Requirements and Burden, the figures in the “CHIP” and the “Total” entries are incorrect.

On page 41274, in the regulation text for § 438.16(e)(2)(iii)(A), we inadvertently included a semicolon at the end of this paragraph.

On page 41281, in the regulation text for § 438.515(b)(1), we inadvertently included a close parenthesis at the end of this paragraph.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA mandates a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a substantive rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment, and delay in effective date requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. Similarly, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where good cause is found and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it. In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements.

This document merely corrects technical errors in the Managed Care final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies that were proposed, subject to notice and comment procedures, and adopted in the Managed Care final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to resolve inadvertent errors so that the rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in the final rule. Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the Managed Care final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary because we are not making any substantive revisions to the final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register document to reflect the policies that we previously proposed, received public comment on, and subsequently finalized in the final rule. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.

In FR Doc. 2024-08085 appearing on page 41002 in the Federal Register of Friday, May 10, 2024, make the following corrections:

1. On page 41003, in Table 1: Applicability Dates,

a. Row 7, second column, the sentence that reads “Applicable for the first rating period beginning on or afterJuly 9, 2026.” is corrected to read “Applicable for the first rating period beginning on or after July 9, 2026.”.

b. Row 13, second column, the sentence that reads “Applicable by the first rating period beginning on or after the release of reporting instructions.” is corrected to read “Applicable by the first rating period beginning on or after the date specified in the T-MSIS reporting instructions released by CMS.”.

2. On page 41004, Table 1: Applicability Dates, row 2, second column, the sentence that reads “Applicable by the end of the fourth calendar year following [inset the effective date of the final rule].” is corrected to read “Applicable by the end of the fourth calendar year following July 9, 2024.”.

3. On page 41119, second column, last full paragraph, line 12, the phrase that reads “State directed payment-” is corrected to read “State directed payment”.

4. On page 41123,

a. Beginning in the first column, last full paragraph, line 12 and continuing to the second column, lines 1 through 5, the sentence that reads “Currently CMS has standardized process that reviews T-MSIS data needs, proposes revisions to the T-MSIS submission file format(s), and provides opportunity for States' review and comment.” is corrected to read “Currently CMS has a standardized process that reviews T-MSIS data needs, proposes revisions to the T-MSIS submission file format(s), and provides opportunity for States' review and comment.”

b. Second column, first partial paragraph, lines 36 through 41, the sentence that reads “We are not finalizing proposed §§ 438.8(k)(1)(xiv) through (xvi) or § 438.74(a)(3) through (4) to require SDP line-level reporting in the State summary and managed care plan specific MLR report.” is corrected to read “We are not finalizing proposed §§ 438.8(k)(1)(xiv) through (xvi) or § 438.74(a)(3) through (4) to require SDP line-level reporting in the State summary and managed care plan specific MLR reports.”

5. On page 41130, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 17 through 24, the sentence that reads “We are finalizing the effective date for this provision as the first rating period beginning on or after 1 year after the effective date for the provider incentive changes in §§ 438.3(i), 438.608(e), and the existing cross-references at § 457.1200(d) for separate CHIP.” is corrected to read “We are finalizing the effective date for this provision as the first rating period beginning on or after 1 year after the effective date of the final rule for the provider incentive changes in §§ 438.3(i), 438.608(e), and the existing cross-references at § 457.1200(d) for separate CHIP.”

6. On page 41139, second column, second paragraph, lines 9 through 13, the sentence that reads “We are instead finalizing in revised § 438.608(a)(2) that States require managed care plans to define “prompt” as within 30 calendar days of identifying or recovery an overpayment.” is corrected to read “We are instead finalizing in revised § 438.608(a)(2) that States require managed care plans to define “prompt” as within 30 calendar days of identifying or recovery of an overpayment.”.

7. On page 41168, first column, first partial paragraph, lines 16 through 29, the sentence that reads “ “Within 30 calendar days of receipt of a notice described in paragraph(e)(2)(iii)(A), (B) or (C) of this section, the State must submit an ILOS transition plan to CMS for review and approval: (A) The notice the State provides to an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP of its decision to terminate an ILOS; (B) The notice an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP provides to the State of its decision to cease offering an ILOS to its enrollees; or (C) The notice CMS provides to the State of its decision to require the State to terminate an ILOS.” ” is corrected to read “ “Within 30 calendar days of receipt of a notice described in paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(A), (B) or (C) of this section, the State must submit an ILOS transition plan to CMS for review and approval. (A) The notice the State provides to an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP of its decision to terminate an ILOS. (B) The notice an MCO, PIHP, or PAHP provides to the State of its decision to cease offering an ILOS to its enrollees. (C) The notice CMS provides to the State of its decision to require the State to terminate an ILOS.” ”

8. On page 41245, third column, first partial paragraph, lines 10 through 14, the sentence that reads “In aggregate for Medicaid, we estimate an annual private sector burden of 168 hours (7 States × 24 hr) at a cost of $19,848 (168 hr × $118.14/hr).” is corrected to read “In aggregate for Medicaid, we estimate an annual State burden of 168 hours (7 States × 24 hr) at a cost of $19,848 (168 hr × $118.14/hr). In aggregate for CHIP, we estimate an annual State burden of 168 hours (7 States × 24 hr) at a cost of $19,848 (168 hr × $118.14/hr).”.

9. On page 41254, Table 6, Summary of CHIP Requirements and Burden, is corrected by adding the following entry directly above the entry for “457.1240(d) QRS website display yearly maintenance”:

10. On page 41255, in Table 6, Summary of CHIP Requirements and Burden, row 3, the “Total” entry is corrected to read as follows:

11. On page 41256, in Table 7, Summary of Medicaid and CHIP Requirements and Burden, rows 3 and 4, the “CHIP” and the “Total” entries are corrected to read as follows:

In FR Doc. 2024-08273 of May 10, 2024 (89 FR 40876), there were typographical and technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. These corrections are effective as if they had been included in the Minimum Staffing final rule. Accordingly, the corrections are effective June 21, 2024.

On page 40876, we made a typographical error in the implementation date for §§ 438.72(a) and 442.43 that must be implemented by all States and territories with Medicaid-certified nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities.

On page 40895, we included an incorrect citation at footnote number 62.

On page 40898, Table 2: Requirements for the LTC Staffing Statutory Waivers by Facility Type, portions of the table content were omitted.

On page 40901, we included incorrect links for the Bureau of Labor Statistic's Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics Query System and the data source used to calculate the population for each MSA or non-MSA using population estimates from the United States Census Bureau.

On page 40909 we included an incorrect citation at footnote number 67.

On page 40911, we made an error in describing the Census Bureau definition of “urban” as one that used “counties” for the unit of measure.

On pages 40919, 40920, 40923, and 40929, we made typographical errors in regulatory citations.

On page 40930, we made a typographical error in a reference to page numbers in the Federal Register .

On pages 40931 and 40932, we made typographical errors in regulatory citations.

On page 40934, we made typographical errors in the summary of regulatory language changes.

On page 40935, we included an incorrect link for the May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics.

On page 40948, we included an incorrect citation at footnote number 96.

On page 40949, we included an incorrect table number reference.

On page 40992, we included incorrect links for the May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics.

On page 40995, in the regulation text for § 442.43(b), we made a reference to “State directed payments as defined in § 438.6(c) of this chapter”. However, this definition of State directed payments was moved to § 438.2 in the Managed Care Access, Finance, and Quality final rule (89 FR 41002). We are correcting this error.

On page 40998, in the regulation text for § 483.35(h)(2)(iv), we made an incorrect cross-reference to § 483.71(b)(4), which does not exist.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA mandates a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a substantive rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment, and delay in effective date requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. Similarly, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where good cause is found and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it. In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements.

This document merely corrects technical errors in the Minimum Staffing final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies that were proposed, subject to notice and comment procedures, and adopted in the Minimum Staffing final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this correcting document are intended to resolve inadvertent errors so that the rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in the final rule. Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the Minimum Staffing final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects our policies as of the date they take effect. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary because we are not making any substantive revisions to the final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register document to reflect the policies that we previously proposed, received public comment on, and subsequently finalized in the final rule. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.

In FR Doc. 2024-08273 of May 10, 2024 (89 FR 40876), make the following corrections:

1. On page 40876, first column, sixth paragraph under the heading DATES , lines 1 through 7, the sentence that reads “The regulations at §§ 438.72(a) and 442.43 must be implemented by all States and territories with Medicaid-certified nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities beginning May 10, 2028.” is corrected to read “The regulations at §§ 438.72(a) and 442.43 must be implemented by all States and territories with Medicaid-certified nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities beginning June 21, 2028.”.

2. On page 40895, footnote number 62 that reads “42 CFR 483.35, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/28/factsheet-protecting-seniors-and-people-withdisabilities-by-improving-safety-and-quality-of-carein-the-nations-nursing-homes/. ” is corrected to read “42 CFR 483.35(b)(1)”.

3. On page 40898, Table 2, is corrected to read:

4. On page 40901, third column, first partial paragraph,

a. Lines 19 and 20, the parenthetical that reads “(available at https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/home )” is corrected to read “(available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm )”.

b. Lines 26 through 29, the parenthetical that reads “(available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/timeseries/demo/popest/2020s-countiestotal.html#v2022 )” is corrected to read “(available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-counties-total.html )”.

5. On page 40909, footnote number 67 that reads “ https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3905.pdf ” is corrected to read “Recommended Practices for Anti-Retaliation Programs. OSHA, OSHA 3905-01/2017. Accessed at www.https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3905.pdf. Accessed on March 1, 2024.”

6. On page 40911, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 8 through 14, the sentence that reads “For example, if we were to use the Census Bureau's definition of `urban', 2,645 counties would be classified as urban, 73 while if we were to use OMB's definition of `urban', 1,252 counties would be considered `urban.'  74 ” is corrected to read “For example, if we were to use the Census Bureau's definition of `urban', 2,645 areas (combination of counties, cities, census designated areas) would be classified as urban, 73 while if we were to use OMB's definition of `urban', 1,252 counties would be considered `urban.'  74 ”

7. On page 40919, in the second column,

a. First full paragraph, line 9, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(c)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(b)”.

b. Second full paragraph, line 15, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.311(e)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(e)”.

8. On page 40920, first column, first paragraph, line 9, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(c)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(b)”.

9. On page 40923, second column, first partial paragraph, line 5, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(a)(2)(ix)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(a)(2)(x)”.

10. On page 40929, first column, first partial paragraph, line 27, that regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.311(e)(2)” is corrected to read “§ 441.311(e)(4)”.

11. On page 40930, third column, last paragraph, lines 12 and 13, the Federal Register citation that reads “88 FR 61831 through 61833” is corrected to read “88 FR 61381 through 61383”.

12. On page 40931, third column,

a. Second paragraph, line 1, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(d)(1)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(d)”.

b. Third paragraph, line 1, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(d)(2)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(d)(1)”.

13. On page 40932, first column,

a. First partial paragraph, line 2, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(d)(3)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(d)(2)”.

b. First partial paragraph, line 7, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(d)(3)” is corrected to read “§ 442.43(d)(2)”.

c. First full paragraph, line 1, the regulatory citation that reads “§ 442.43(d)(4)” is corrected to § 442.43(d)(3)”.

14. On page 40934,

a. In the second column, sixth paragraph, lines 7 through 11, the sentence that reads “Additionally, we are finalizing the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2)(xi) with a modification to include nurses and other staff that providing that clinical supervision.” is corrected to read “Additionally, we are finalizing the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2)(xi) with a modification to include nurses and other staff providing clinical supervision.”

b. In the third column, third paragraph, lines 5 through 6, the phrase “and added a cross-reference to § 442.43(b)(3).” is corrected to “and in § 442.43(b)(1) added a cross-reference to § 442.43(b)(3).”

15. On page 40935, third column, eighth paragraph, lines 3 through 8, the sentence that reads “Unless otherwise indicated, we obtained all salary information from the May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, BLS at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.” is corrected to read “Unless otherwise indicated, we obtained all salary information from the May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, BLS at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.”

16. On page 40948, footnote number 96, that reads “ https://data.cms.gov/summary-statistics-on-use-and-payments/medicare-service-type-reports/cms-program-statistics-medicare-skilled-nursing-facility.” is corrected to read “ https://data.cms.gov/provider-data/dataset/4pq5-n9py.”.

17. On page 40949, third column, first full paragraph, line 2, the table reference that reads “table 21” is corrected to read “table 31”.

18. On page 40992,

a. In the second column, first full paragraph, lines 1 through 9, the sentence that reads “Using the wage information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm, for medical and health service managers (Code 11-9111), we estimate that the cost of reviewing this rule is $123.06 per hour, including overhead and fringe benefits.” is corrected to read “Using the wage information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm, for medical and health service managers (Code 11-9111), we estimate that the cost of reviewing this rule is $123.06 per hour, including overhead and fringe benefits.”

b. In the third column, second paragraph, lines 1 through 9, the sentence that reads “Using the wage information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm, for medical and health service managers (Code 11-9111), we estimated that the cost of reviewing this rule is $123.06 per hour, including overhead and fringe benefits.” is corrected to read “Using the wage information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm, for medical and health service managers (Code 11-9111), we estimated that the cost of reviewing this rule is $123.06 per hour, including overhead and fringe benefits.”

The “Improving Child Care Access, Affordability, and Stability in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)” rule, published at 89 FR 15366 on March 1, 2024, included inaccurate amendatory instructions for § 98.16 and inadvertently failed to update certain amended cross-references. This document corrects the final regulations.

Accordingly, 45 CFR part 98 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

The transboundary stock of Pacific whiting is managed through the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting of 2003 (Agreement). The Agreement establishes bilateral management bodies to implement the terms of the Agreement, including the Joint Management Committee (JMC), which recommends the annual catch limit for Pacific whiting. NMFS issued a proposed rule on April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34188) that describes the Agreement, including the establishment of F-40 percent default harvest rate, the explicit allocation of the Pacific whiting coastwide total allowable catch (TAC) to the United States (73.88 percent) and Canada (26.12 percent), the bilateral bodies to implement the terms of the Agreement, including the JMC, and the process used to determine the coastwide TAC under the Agreement, including adjusting the TAC for carryovers from the prior year.

The Treaty's Advisory Panel (AP) and the JMC met in Lynnwood, Washington February 27-29, 2024, to develop advice on a 2024 coastwide TAC. The AP provided its 2024 TAC recommendation to the JMC on February 29, 2024. The JMC reviewed the advice of the JTC, the Scientific Review Group (SRG), and the AP, and agreed on a TAC recommendation for transmittal to the United States and Canadian Governments.

As detailed in the proposed rule (89 FR 34188, April 30, 2024), the Agreement directs the JMC to base the catch limit recommendation on the F-40 default harvest rate, unless scientific evidence demonstrates that a different harvest rate is necessary to sustain the offshore Pacific whiting resource. The F-40 default harvest rate is a fishing mortality rate that would reduce the spawning biomass of Pacific whiting to 40 percent of the estimated unfished level. After consideration of the 2024 stock assessment and other relevant scientific information, the JMC did not use the default harvest rate, and instead agreed on a more conservative approach. There were two primary reasons for choosing a TAC below the default harvest rate: (1) uncertainty regarding the size of the 2020 and 2021 year-classes led the JMC to conclude that using the default harvest rate could be too risky if these cohorts are smaller than estimated; and (2) the fact that the 2023 acoustic survey biomass was the third-lowest in the survey time series. The JMC concluded that both of these factors warranted setting the coastwide TAC below the 2023 value of 625,000 metric tons (mt), and lower than the level that would result from application of the F-40 default harvest rate. This conservative approach was endorsed by the AP and is consistent with Article III(1) of the Agreement.

The Agreement allows an adjusted TAC when either country's catch exceeds or is less than its TAC in the prior year. If the catch is in excess of the country's TAC, the amount of the overage is deducted from that country's TAC in the following year. If catch falls short of the country's TAC, a portion of the shortfall is carried over and added to the country's TAC for the following year. Under the Agreement, carryover adjustments cannot not exceed 15 percent of a party country's unadjusted TAC for the year in which the shortfall occurred. In 2023, neither country fully attained their respective TACs. The percentage of the U.S. TAC attained for 2023 is detailed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) (see the ADDRESSES section), which is summarized in the Classification section below.

For the 2024 Pacific whiting fishery, the JMC recommended a coastwide TAC of 473,513 mt prior to adjustment. Based on Article III(2) of the Agreement, the 73.88 percent U.S. share of the unadjusted coastwide TAC is 349,831 mt. Consistent with Article II(5)(b) of the Agreement, a carryover of 60,203 mt was added to the U.S. share for an adjusted U.S. TAC of 410,034 mt. The 26.12 percent Canadian share of the unadjusted coastwide TAC, consistent with Article III(2) of the Agreement, is 123,681 mt, and a carryover of 21,285 mt was added to the Canadian share for an adjusted Canadian TAC of 144,966 mt. The total adjusted coastwide TAC is 555,000 mt for 2024.

This recommendation is consistent with the best available scientific information, and provisions of the Agreement and the Whiting Act of 2006 (Whiting Act). The recommendation was transmitted via letter to the United States and Canadian Governments on March 05, 2024. NMFS, under delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, approved the TAC recommendation of 410,034 mt for U.S. fisheries on March 29, 2024.

This final rule announces the adjusted coastwide TAC of 555,000 mt, an adjusted U.S. TAC of 410,034 mt, and establishes the domestic 2024 Pacific whiting harvest specifications, which constitutes the 2024 Tribal allocation, the 2024 season allocations for three non-Tribal commercial whiting sectors, and a set-aside for incidental mortality from research activities and in the non-groundfish trawl fisheries ( e.g. pink shrimp fishery). The Tribal and non-Tribal allocations for Pacific whiting, as well as the set-aside, are effective until December 31, 2024.

This final rule establishes the Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting for 2024 as described in the proposed rule (89 FR 34188, April 30, 2024). Four Washington coastal treaty Indian Tribes—the Makah Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, and the Hoh Indian Tribe—have treaty rights to harvest Pacific whiting in their usual and accustomed fishing areas in U.S. waters. Regulations at 50 CFR 660.50 set forth procedures to coordinate with the Tribes to exercise their treaty right in ocean fisheries with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS.

NMFS allocates a portion of the U.S. TAC of Pacific whiting to the Tribal fishery, following the process established in 50 CFR 660.50(d). Regulations for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) specify that the Tribal allocation is subtracted from the total U.S. Pacific whiting TAC. NMFS contacted the Tribes between September and December of 2023 to determine their plans for participation in the 2024 Tribal Pacific whiting fishery. Only the Makah Indian Tribe indicated its intent to continue to fish and requested 17.5 percent of the U.S. Pacific whiting allocation, which is identical to the percentage allotted in previous fishing years. In this final rule, NMFS will implement the 2024 Tribal allocation of 71,755.95 mt, which is 17.5 percent of the total U.S. TAC.

As with prior Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting, this final rule is not intended to establish a precedent for future Pacific whiting seasons, or for the determination of the total amount of Pacific whiting to which the Tribes are entitled under their treaty right. In 2009, NMFS, the States of Washington and Oregon, and the coastal treaty Tribes started a process to determine the long-term Tribal allocation for Pacific whiting; however, no long-term allocation has been determined. The long-term Tribal treaty amount will be based on further development of scientific information and additional coordination and discussion with and among the coastal treaty Tribes and the States of Washington and Oregon.

The U.S. non-Tribal whiting fishery is managed under the Council's Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. Each year, the Council recommends a set-aside to accommodate incidental mortality of Pacific whiting in research activities and the state-managed pink shrimp fishery (a non-groundfish fishery). The set-aside is based on estimates of scientific research catch and estimated bycatch mortality in non-groundfish fisheries. At its November 2023 meeting, the Council recommended an incidental mortality set-aside of 750 mt for 2024. This set-aside is unchanged from the 750 mt set-aside amount recommended by the Council in November of 2022 and implemented for incidental mortality in 2023. This final rule implements the Council's recommendation for a 750 mt set-aside for 2024.

This final rule implements the fishery harvest guideline (HG) ( i.e., the non-Tribal allocation) as described in the proposed rule (89 FR 34188, April 30, 2024). The 2024 fishery HG for Pacific whiting is 337,528.05 mt. This amount was determined by deducting the 71,755.95 mt Tribal allocation and the 750 mt set-aside for scientific research catch and fishing mortality in non-groundfish fisheries from the U.S. adjusted TAC of 410,034 mt. Federal regulations further allocate the fishery HG among the three non-tribal sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery: (1) the catcher/processor (C/P) Co-op Program; (2) the Mothership (MS) Co-op Program; and (3) the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. The C/P Co-op Program is allocated 34 percent (114,759.53 mt for 2024), the MS Co-op Program is allocated 24 percent (81,006.73 mt for 2024), and the Shorebased IFQ Program is allocated 42 percent (141,761.78 mt for 2024). The fishery south of 42° N lat. may not take more than 7,088 mt (5 percent of the Shorebased IFQ Program allocation) prior to May 1, the start of the primary Pacific whiting season north of 42° N lat.

This rule is implemented under the statutory and regulatory authority of sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Whiting Act, the regulations governing the groundfish fishery at 50 CFR 660.5 through 660.360, and other applicable laws. Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR 660.50, this final rule is necessary to ensure the fishery is managed in a manner consistent with treaty rights of four Treaty Tribes to fish in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in common with non-Tribal citizens ( United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Wash. 1974)).

NMFS issued a proposed rule on April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34188). The comment period on the proposed rule closed May 15, 2024. One public comment was received from an individual member of the public suggesting alternate punctuation for the title of this rule, otherwise no relevant comments were received during the public comment period.

No substantive changes from the proposed action were made to the final action. However, this final rule corrects typographical errors that were published in the proposed rule (89 FR 34188, April 30, 2024). Previously published numerical values (87 FR 77007, December 16, 2022; 88 FR 89313, December 27, 2023) for the harvest specifications of non-whiting groundfish species were incorrectly transcribed in tables 2a and 2b to part 660 subpart C-2024, and table 1 to § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D) of the proposed regulations. Specifically, in table 2a to part 660 subpart C-2024, the ACL for Canary Rockfish ACL was misprinted as “12,296” mt and is corrected to “1,296” mt. In table 2b to part 660 subpart C-2024 the Fishery HG for Arrowtooth flounder was misprinted as “12” mt, and is corrected to “12,083” mt. In and table 1 to paragraph § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D) the 2024 Shorebased trawl allocations (mt) for 7 species and stock allocations were misprinted and corrected as follows: Yelloweye rockfish misprinted as “4.42” is corrected to “3.41”; Canary rockfish misprinted as “830.22” is corrected to “851.42”; Darkblotched rockfish misprinted as “613.53” is corrected to “644.34”; Sablefish North of 36° N lat. misprinted as “3,559.38” is corrected to “3,535.91”; Sablefish South of 36° N lat. misprinted as “889.00” is corrected to “909.55”; Yellowtail rockfish misprinted as “3,668.56” is corrected to “3,431.69”; Shelf rockfish complex South of 40°10′ N lat. misprinted as “163.02” is corrected to “162.43”.

The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific whiting and that it is consistent with sections 304(b) and 305(d), and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, Whiting Act, and other applicable laws.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the NMFS Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness for this final rule because such a delay would be contrary to the public interest. The Pacific whiting fishery season began on May 1, 2024 under interim allocations based on a proxy coastwide TAC analyzed in the 2024 Pacific whiting stock assessment (see ADDRESSES ). This proxy coastwide TAC was 483,960 mt, which is approximately 13 percent lower than the recommended 2024 coastwide TAC of 555,000 mt announced in the proposed rule and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. If the non-Tribal commercial sectors fully harvest this partial interim allocation before the final TAC is implemented, NMFS will be required to close the Pacific whiting fishery until such time that the full 2024 season allocation is implemented. Timely implementation of the full TAC will avoid the need to close the Pacific whiting fishery if the current interim allocations are fully harvested.

As the Pacific whiting season is only 6 months long, open from May 1 to December 31, a 30-day delay in the implementation of the full 2024 season allocations represents a significant operational limitation to the commercial whiting sectors. If this final rule were delayed by 30 days, the Pacific whiting commercial sectors would not be able to fish under the final catch limits for Pacific whiting for that time period, be at risk of potential premature season closure, and would not be able to realize the full level of economic opportunity this rule provides. This rule increases catch limits for Pacific whiting compared to the restrictive partial interim allocation the fishery is currently operating under, it therefore finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the date of effectiveness requirement.

Additionally, many vessels in the Pacific whiting fishery also participate in the Alaskan pollock fishery. The Alaskan pollock fishery B-season typically runs from mid-June to mid-November of each year, overlapping with the May 1 to December 31 Pacific whiting season. Vessels that participate in both the West Coast Pacific whiting fishery, and the Alaskan pollock fishery must time operations and travel between these fisheries. Without having access to their full 2024 Pacific whiting season allocations, fishery participants are unable to plan the timing of their operations, and are restricted in their participation in these fisheries for the 2024 season. Issuing complete 2024 Pacific whiting allocations to quota owners in a timely fashion ensures they can plan their participation for the year in both the Pacific whiting and Alaskan pollock fisheries. Implementing this rule upon the date of publication relieves the limitation in planning vessel operations and provides the commercial whiting fleet more opportunity and greater flexibility to harvest the optimal yield. Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness will allow this final rule to more fully benefit the fishery through increased fishing opportunities as described in the preamble of this rule.

This rulemaking could not be completed prior to the May 1 start date of the 2024 Pacific Whiting primary fishing season due to the timeline required by the Agreement, which resulted in the short time frame between the approval of the TAC recommendation and the start of the fishing season. The AP and JMC met in Lynnwood, Washington on February 26-29, 2024, to develop a recommendation for a 2024 coastwide TAC. At this meeting, the JMC agreed on a TAC recommendation, which was transmitted to the United States and Canadian Governments on March 4, 2024. The Department of Commerce consulted with the Department of State on the recommended TAC and concurred with the NMFS West Coast Region on March 14, 2024 to accept the JMC recommended adjusted TAC for 2024. NMFS, under delegation of authority from the Secretary of Commerce, approved the TAC recommendation U.S. fisheries on March 29, 2024. This rulemaking proceeded once the JMC agreed on a recommended coastwide TAC, and the Department of Commerce in consultation with the Department of State reviewed and approved the recommended U.S. TAC. The proposed rule was published on April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34188). The 2024 Pacific whiting primary fishing season began shortly thereafter on May 1, 2024. The public comment period closed on May 15, 2024. Therefore, NMFS could not issue full season allocations implemented under this final rule prior to the May 1 start date of the Pacific whiting fishery.

Waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness will not have a negative impact on any entities, as there are no new compliance requirements or other burdens placed on the fishing community with this rule. Making this rule effective immediately would also serve the best interests of the public because it will allow for the longest possible fishing season for Pacific whiting and therefore the best possible economic outcome for those whose livelihoods depend on this fishery.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

A range of potential total harvest levels for Pacific whiting has been considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2015-2016 and Biennial Periods thereafter (2015/16 FEIS), and in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) included in the analytical document for Amendment 30 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and 2023-2024 Harvest Specifications and Management Measures. These documents are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The 2015/16 FEIS examined the harvest specifications and management measures for 2015-2016 and gave 10-year projections for routinely adjusted harvest specifications and management measures. The 10-year projections were produced to evaluate the impacts of the ongoing implementation of harvest specifications and management measures and to evaluate the impacts of the routine adjustments that are the main component of each biennial cycle. The EA for the 2023-2024 cycle builds on the 2015/16 FEIS and focuses on the harvest specifications and management measures that were not within the scope of the 10-year projections in the 2015/16 FEIS.

NMFS issued a proposed rule on April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34188) for the 2024 Harvest Specifications for Pacific whiting, and 2024 Tribal allocation for Pacific whiting. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period on the proposed rule closed May 15, 2024. NMFS did not receive any relevant public comments on the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) did not file any comments on the IRFA or the proposed rule. The description of this action, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here. A FRFA was prepared and incorporates the IRFA. There were no public comments received on the IRFA. NMFS also prepared a RIR for this action. A copy of the RIR/FRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the FRFA, per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604, follows.

Under the RFA, the term “small entities” includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of complying with the RFA, NMFS has established size criteria for entities involved in the fishing industry that qualify as small businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015; 50 CFR part 200). In addition, the SBA has established size criteria for other entities that may be affected by this final rule. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A small organization is any nonprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 750 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide (see North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 311710 at 13 CFR 121.201). For purposes of rulemaking, NMFS is also applying the seafood processor standard to C/Ps because whiting C/Ps earn the majority of the revenue from processed seafood product.

NMFS issued a proposed rule on April 30, 2024 (89 FR 34188). The comment period on the proposed rule closed May 15, 2024. No relevant comments were received during the public comment period.

No substantive changes from the proposed action are being considered in were made to the final action. However, this final rule corrects typographical errors that were published in the proposed rule (89 FR 34188, April 30, 2024). Previously published numerical values (87 FR 77007, December 16, 2022; 88 FR 89313, December 27, 2023) for the harvest specifications of non-whiting groundfish species were incorrectly transcribed in tables 2a and 2b to part 660 subpart C-2024, and table 1 to paragraph § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D) of the proposed regulations. Specifically, in table 2a to part 660 subpart C-2024, the ACL for Canary Rockfish ACL was misprinted as “12,296” mt and is corrected to “1,296” mt. In table 2b to part 660 subpart C-2024 the Fishery HG for Arrowtooth flounder was misprinted as “12” mt, and is corrected to “12,083” mt. In and table 1 to paragraph § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(D) the 2024 Shorebased trawl allocations (mt) for 7 species and stock allocations were misprinted and corrected as follows: Yelloweye rockfish misprinted as “4.42” is corrected to “3.41”; Canary rockfish misprinted as “830.22” is corrected to “851.42”; Darkblotched rockfish misprinted as “613.53” is corrected to “644.34”; Sablefish North of 36° N lat. misprinted as “3,559.38” is corrected to “3,535.91”; Sablefish South of 36° N lat. misprinted as “889.00” is corrected to “909.55”; Yellowtail rockfish misprinted as “3,668.56” is corrected to “3,431.69”; Shelf rockfish complex South of 40°10′ N lat. misprinted as “163.02” is corrected to “162.43”.

This final rule affects how Pacific whiting is allocated to the following sectors/programs: Tribal, Shorebased IFQ Program Trawl Fishery, MS Co-op Program Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery, and C/P Co-op Program Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. The amount of Pacific whiting allocated to these sectors is based on the U.S. TAC, which is developed and approved through the process set out in the Agreement and the Whiting Act.

NMFS expects one Tribal entity, the Makah Tribe, to fish for Pacific whiting in 2024. Tribes are not considered small entities for the purposes of RFA. Impacts to Tribes are nevertheless considered in this analysis.

This final rule directly affects the C/P Co-op Program, which is composed of 10 C/P endorsed permits owned by 3 companies that have formed a single co-op. These co-ops are considered large entities both because they have participants that are large entities and because they have in total more than 750 employees worldwide including affiliates.

This final rule also directly affects the Shorebased IFQ Program. As of March 2024, the Shorebased IFQ Program is composed of 163 Quota Share permits/accounts (122 of which were allocated Pacific whiting quota pounds), and 48 licensed first receiver sites, of which 16 sites are owned by 10 companies that receive Pacific whiting. Of these companies that receive Pacific whiting, none are considered small entities.

This final rule also directly affects participants in the MS Co-op Program, the limited access program that applies to eligible harvesters and processors in the MS sector of the Pacific whiting at-sea trawl fishery. This program consists of 6 MS processor permits, and a catcher vessel fleet currently composed of a single co-op, with 34 Mothership/Catcher Vessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits (with 3 permits each having 2 catch history assignments).

Although there are 3 non-tribal sectors (the C/P Co-op Program, the Shorebased IFQ Program, and the MS Co-op Program), many companies participate in 2 different sectors and some participate in all 3 sectors, as well as participate in other non-whiting groundfish fisheries. As part of the permit application processes for the non-tribal fisheries, NMFS asks permit applicants if they considered themselves a small business based on a review of the SBA size criteria and asks each permit applicant to provide detailed ownership information. Data on employment worldwide, including affiliates, are not available for these companies, which generally operate in Alaska as well as on the West Coast in non-whiting groundfish fisheries, and which may have operations in other countries, as well. NMFS requests that limited entry permit holders self-report their size status. For 2024, all 10 C/P permits reported that they are not small businesses, as did 8 mothership catcher vessels. There is substantial, but not complete, overlap between permit ownership and vessel ownership so there may be a small number of additional small entity vessel owners who will be impacted by this rule. After accounting for cross-fishery participation, multiple Quota Share account holders, and affiliation through ownership, NMFS estimates that there are 103 non-tribal entities directly affected by these regulations (89 of which are considered small entities).

This rule will allocate Pacific whiting between Tribal and non-Tribal harvesters (a mixture of small and large businesses). Tribal fisheries consist of a mixture of fishing activities that are similar to the activities that non-tribal fisheries undertake. Tribal harvests may be delivered to both shoreside plants and motherships for processing. These processing facilities also process fish harvested by non-tribal fisheries. The effect of the Tribal allocation on non-Tribal fisheries will depend on the level of Tribal harvests relative to their allocation and the reapportionment process. If the Tribes do not harvest their entire allocation, there are opportunities during the year to reapportion unharvested Tribal amounts to the non-Tribal fleets. For example, in 2023 NMFS reapportioned 45,000 mt of the original 80,806 mt Tribal allocation (88 FR 75238, November 2, 2023) to the non-Tribal fleets. This reapportionment was based on conversations with the Treaty Tribes and the best information available at the time, which indicated that this amount would not limit Tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of the year. The reapportioning process allows unharvested Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting to be fished by the non-tribal fleets, benefitting both large and small entities. The revised Pacific whiting allocations for 2023 following the reapportionment were as follows: (1) Tribal 35,806 mt; (2) C/P Co-op 144,566 mt; (3) MS Co-op 102,047 mt; and (4) Shorebased IFQ Program 178,581 mt.

The prices for Pacific whiting are largely determined by the world market because most of the Pacific whiting harvested in the United States is exported. The U.S. Pacific whiting TAC is highly variable, as is subsequent attainment of sector allocations, and ex-vessel revenues. For the years 2013-2023, the U.S. non-tribal commercial fishery sectors averaged harvests of approximately 271,392 mt, and revenues of $54.1 million, annually. The 2023 U.S. non-tribal commercial fishery sectors attained a Pacific whiting catch of approximately 239,665 mt out of a harvest guideline of 380,194 mt ( i.e., 63 percent attainment), resulting in a total revenue of $46.6 million. The Tribal fishery landed less than 1,000 mt out of the 2023 Tribal allocation of 80,806 mt.

Impacts to the U.S. non-Tribal fishery are measured with an estimate of ex-vessel revenue. The adjusted coastwide TAC of 555,000 mt results in an adjusted U.S. TAC of 410,034 mt and, after deduction of the Tribal allocation and the incidental catch set-aside, a U.S. non-Tribal harvest guideline of 337,528.05 mt. Using the 2023 weighted-average non-Tribal price of $194.74 per metric ton, the 2024 adjusted U.S. TAC is estimated to result in a potential ex-vessel revenue of $65.7 million for the U.S. non-Tribal fishing fleet if fully harvested ( i.e., 100 percent attainment).

Impacts to Tribal catcher vessels who elect to participate in the Tribal fishery are measured with an estimate of ex-vessel revenue. In lieu of more complete information on Tribal deliveries, total ex-vessel revenue is estimated with the 2023 average ex-vessel price of Pacific whiting ( i.e., $194.74 per mt). At that price, the 2024 Tribal allocation of 71,755.95 mt would potentially have an ex-vessel value of $13.97 million if fully harvested.

For the allocations to the non-tribal commercial sectors, the Pacific whiting Tribal allocation, and set-asides for research and incidental mortality NMFS considered 2 alternatives: the “No Action” alternative and the “Proposed Action” alternative.

For allocations to non-tribal commercial sectors, the No Action alternative would mean that NMFS would not implement allocations to the non-Tribal sectors based on the JMC recommended U.S. TAC. This is contrary to the Whiting Act and the Agreement, both of which require sustainable management of the Pacific whiting resource. Therefore, the No Action alternative for allocations to non-tribal commercial sectors received no further consideration.

For set-asides for research and incidental mortality, the No Action alternative would mean that NMFS would not implement the set-aside amount of 750 mt recommended by the Council. Not implementing set-asides of the US whiting TAC would mean that incidental mortality of the fish in research activities and non-groundfish fisheries would not be accommodated. This would be inconsistent with the Council's recommendation, the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, the regulations setting the framework governing the groundfish fishery, and NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery. Therefore, the No Action alternative for set-asides received no further consideration.

NMFS did not consider a broader range of alternatives to the proposed Tribal allocation because the Tribal allocation is a percentage of the U.S. TAC and is based primarily on the requests of the Tribes. These requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will allow the Tribes to exercise their treaty right to fish for Pacific whiting. Under the Proposed Action alternative, NMFS would set the Tribal allocation percentage at 17.5 percent, as requested by the Tribes. This would yield a Tribal allocation of 71,755.95 mt for 2024. Consideration of a percentage lower than the Tribal request of 17.5 percent is not appropriate in this instance. As a matter of policy, NMFS has historically supported the harvest levels requested by the Tribes. Based on the information available to NMFS, the Tribal request is within their Tribal treaty rights. A higher percentage would arguably also be within the scope of the treaty right. However, a higher percentage would unnecessarily limit the non-Tribal fishery.

Therefore, the No Action alternative would result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the Tribal sector in 2024, which would be inconsistent with NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery consistent with the Tribes' treaty rights. Given that there is a Tribal request for allocation in 2024, this No Action alternative for allocation to the Tribal sector received no further consideration and NMFS elected to move forward with the Proposed Action alternative.

NMFS has determined this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on small entities. This rule is similar to previous rulemakings concerning Pacific whiting. In the context of an internationally set TAC, this rule concerns the amount of the U.S. TAC that should be allocated to the Tribal fishery and to a set-aside for research and bycatch in non-groundfish fisheries, and establishes Pacific whiting allocations for the non-Tribal fishery for 2024. With this final rule, NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary, determined that the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP is implemented in a manner consistent with treaty rights of four Treaty Tribes to fish in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in common with non-tribal citizens ( United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Wash. 1974)). Pacific whiting allocations to the non-Tribal sectors provide additional economic opportunity to the entities considered in this analysis to prosecute a quota species within a multi-species groundfish catch share program. In addition, the reapportioning process allows unharvested Tribal allocations of Pacific whiting, fished by small entities, to be fished by the non-Tribal fleets, potentially providing economic benefits to both large and small entities. NMFS believes this rule will not adversely affect small entities. Thus, as discussed above, this action would not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

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

No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. A small entity compliance guide will be sent to stakeholders, and copies of the final rule and guides ( i.e., information bulletins) are available from NMFS at the following website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/pacific-whiting#management.

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

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

NMFS closed directed fishing for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) (89 FR 17287, March 11, 2024).

NMFS has determined that approximately 4,500 metric tons of POP remain in the directed fishing allowance. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2024 total allowable catch of POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for POP in Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI, effective 12 p.m., A.l.t., June 17, 2024, through 12 a.m., A.l.t., December 31, 2024. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters dependent on POP in this area.

The Administrator, Alaska Region considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of POP in the BSAI; and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels participating in this fishery.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 14, 2024.

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

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for POP in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until July 9, 2024.