Table of Contents I. Statutory and Regulatory Background II. Overview of Final Rule III. Adjustments by Component A. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency B. U.S. Customs and Border Protection C. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement D. U.S. Coast Guard E. Transportation Security Administration IV. Administrative Procedure Act V. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act VI. Signing Authority I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74 section 701 (Nov. 2, 2015)) (2015 Act). 1 The 2015 Act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) to further improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act required agencies to: (1) adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through issuance of an interim final rule (IFR) and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. 2 Through the “catch-up” adjustment, agencies were required to adjust the amounts of civil monetary penalties to more accurately reflect inflation rates. 3

For the subsequent annual adjustments, the 2015 Act requires agencies to increase the penalty amounts by a cost-of-living adjustment. 4 The 2015 Act directs OMB to provide guidance to agencies each year to assist agencies in making the annual adjustments. 5 The 2015 Act requires agencies to make the annual adjustments no later than January 15 of each year and to publish the adjustments in the Federal Register . 6

Pursuant to the 2015 Act, DHS undertook a review of the civil penalties that DHS and its components administer. 7 On July 1, 2016, DHS published an IFR adjusting the maximum civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment, as required by the 2015 Act. 8 DHS calculated the adjusted penalties based upon nondiscretionary provisions in the 2015 Act and upon guidance that OMB issued to agencies on February 24, 2016. 9 The adjusted penalties were effective for civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016 (the effective date of the IFR), whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015 (the date of enactment of the 2015 Act). 10 On January 27, 2017, DHS published a final rule making the annual adjustment for 2017. 11 On April 2, 2018, DHS made the 2018 annual inflation adjustment. 12 On April 5, 2019, DHS made the 2019 annual inflation adjustment. 13 On June 17, 2020, DHS made the 2020 annual inflation adjustment. 14 On October 18, 2021, DHS made the 2021 annual inflation adjustment. 15 On January 11, 2022, DHS made the 2022 annual inflation adjustment. 16 On January 13, 2023, DHS made the 2023 annual inflation adjustment. 17

This final rule makes the 2024 annual inflation adjustments to civil monetary penalties pursuant to the 2015 Act and pursuant to guidance OMB issued to agencies on December 19, 2023. 18 The penalty amounts in this final rule will be effective for penalties assessed after June 28, 2024 where the associated violation occurred after November 2, 2015. Consistent with OMB guidance, the 2015 Act does not retrospectively change previously assessed penalties that the agency is actively collecting or has collected.

We discuss civil penalties by DHS component in Section III below. For each component identified in Section III, below, we briefly describe the relevant civil penalty (or penalties), and we provide a table showing the increase in the penalties for 2024. In the table for each component, we show (1) the penalty name, (2) the penalty statutory and or regulatory citation, (3) the penalty amount as adjusted in the 2023 final rule, (4) the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2024 that OMB provided in its December 19, 2023, guidance, and (5) the new 2024 adjusted penalty. The 2015 Act instructs agencies to round penalties to the nearest multiple of $1. 19 For a more complete discussion of the method used for calculating the initial “catch-up” inflation adjustments and a component-by-component breakdown to the nature of the civil penalties and relevant legal authorities, please see the IFR preamble at 81 FR 42987-43000.

Additionally, in Section III(D) discussing the civil penalties of the U.S. Coast Guard, DHS is accounting for additional civil monetary penalties that the U.S. Coast Guard is statutorily authorized to collect.

Finally, in issuing this final rule, it is DHS's intention that the rule's penalty provisions be considered severable from one another to the greatest extent possible. For example, if a court of competent jurisdiction were to hold that a particular penalty amount could not be applied as adjusted for inflation to particular persons or in particular circumstances, DHS would intend for the court to leave the remainder of the rule in place with respect to all other penalties as adjusted for inflation and covered persons and circumstances.

In the following sections, we briefly describe the civil penalties that DHS and its components, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), assess. Other components not mentioned do not impose any civil monetary penalties for 2024. At the end of each section we include tables that list the individual adjustments for each penalty.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) administers the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). CFATS is a program that regulates the security of chemical facilities that, in the discretion of the Secretary, present high levels of security risk. DHS established the CFATS program in 2007 pursuant to section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 109-295). 20 Pursuant to section 5 of the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-254, as amended by Pub. L. 116-150; 6 U.S.C. 621 note), authorization had been granted for CFATS until July 27, 2023. Congress did not act to reauthorize the program in time and, as such, the authorization expired on July 28, 2023. Therefore, regulations written pursuant to CFATS authority are not currently active. While regulatory text for the CFATS regulation, including a civil penalty, is located in part 27 of title 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the text is inactive due to the lapse in authority. For that reason, we are not proposing any changes relating to adjustments to the maximum civil penalty amount that may be assessed pursuant to CFATS at this time.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses civil monetary penalties under various titles of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the CFR. These include penalties for certain violations of title 8 of the CFR regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub. L. 82-414, as amended) (INA). The INA contains provisions that impose penalties on persons, including carriers and aliens, who violate specified provisions of the INA. The relevant penalty provisions appear in numerous sections of the INA; however, CBP has enumerated these penalties in regulation in one location—8 CFR 280.53. For a complete list of the INA sections for which penalties are assessed, in addition to a brief description of each violation, see the 2016 IFR preamble at 81 FR 42989-42990. For a complete list and brief description of the non-INA civil monetary penalties assessed by CBP subject to adjustment and a discussion of the history of the DHS and CBP adjustments to the non-INA penalties, see the 2019 annual inflation adjustment final rule preamble at 84 FR 13499, 13500 (April 5, 2019).

Below is a table showing the 2024 adjustment for the penalties that CBP administers.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) assesses civil monetary penalties for certain employment-related violations arising from the INA. ICE's civil penalties are located in title 8 of the CFR.

There are three different sections in the INA that impose civil monetary penalties for violations of the laws that relate to employment actions: sections 274A, 274B, and 274C. ICE has primary enforcement responsibilities for two of these civil penalty provisions (sections 274A and 274C), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has enforcement responsibilities for one of these civil penalty provisions (section 274B). The INA, in sections 274A and 274C, provides for imposition of civil penalties for various specified unlawful acts pertaining to the employment eligibility verification process (Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification), the employment of unauthorized aliens, and document fraud.

Because both DHS and DOJ implement the three employment-related penalty sections in the INA, both Departments' implementing regulations reflect the civil penalty amounts. For a complete description of the civil money penalties assessed and a discussion of DHS's and DOJ's efforts to update the penalties in years past, see the IFR preamble at 81 FR 42991. Below is a table showing the 2024 adjustment for the penalties that ICE administers. 21

The Coast Guard is authorized to assess nearly 150 penalties involving maritime safety and security and environmental stewardship that are critical to the continued success of Coast Guard missions. Various statutes in titles 14, 16, 19, 33, 42, 46, and 49 of the U.S.C. authorize these penalties. Titles 33 and 46 authorize the vast majority of these penalties as these statutes deal with navigation, navigable waters, and shipping. For a more detailed discussion of the civil monetary penalties assessed by the Coast Guard, see the 2016 IFR preamble at 81 FR 42992.

The Coast Guard has identified the penalties it administers, adjusted those penalties for inflation, and is listing those new penalties in a table located in the CFR—specifically, Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3. Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 identifies the statutes that provide the Coast Guard with civil monetary penalty authority and sets out the inflation-adjusted maximum penalty that the Coast Guard may impose pursuant to each statutory provision. Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 provides the current maximum penalty for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015. The applicable civil monetary penalty amounts for violations occurring on or before November 2, 2015, are set forth in previously published regulations amending 33 CFR part 27. To find the applicable penalty amount for a violation that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, look to the prior versions of the CFR that pertain to the date on which the violation occurred.

The Coast Guard has also identified updates to Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 to ensure it accurately reflects all civil monetary penalties that the Coast Guard is statutorily authorized to impose by statute. Table 3, below, lists the penalties that this rule adds or revises in Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 followed by a description of each. The added penalties are those that were either recently enacted or inadvertently excluded from Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 and from prior civil monetary penalty adjustment rulemakings but that are set and authorized for Coast Guard's assessment by statute. They are now added to Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 to create a more complete list of Coast Guard civil monetary penalties and to align with the requirements of the 2015 Act. This rule also removes one penalty, specifically 46 U.S.C. 10104(b), from the existing Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3 because Congress revised and replaced the penalties in 46 U.S.C. 10104 with those that now appear at 46 U.S.C. 10104(a)(2) and 46 U.S.C. 10104(d)(2). 22

The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (2023 NDAA) authorized a civil penalty of $1,000 under 46 U.S.C. 3106(d) for violations of the required Master Key Control System. 23 That penalty became effective on December 23, 2022  24 and is included in the updates to Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3. The civil monetary penalties for violations of passenger vessel security and safety requirements, authorized by 46 U.S.C. 3507(h)(1)(A), and violations of crewmembers' crime scene preservation training requirements, authorized by 46 U.S.C. 3508(d), are also included. The penalty in section 3508(d) was previously authorized in 46 U.S.C. 3508(e) and was redesignated to paragraph 3508(d) by the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. 25 These civil monetary penalties involving cruise vessel security and safety are in effect per statute and Coast Guard policy letters. 26

USCG also adds penalties for violating requirements for engine cutoff switches for first offense, second offense, and subsequent-to-second offense. These three penalties in 46 U.S.C. 4311(c) were codified by Section 8316 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, (Pub. L. 116-283, January 1, 2021). In addition, the Coast Guard adds the existing civil penalty for Employing Qualified Available U.S. Citizens or Residents in 46 U.S.C. 8106(f). This penalty was originally authorized by Congress through Section 312 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-241, July 11, 2006).

Penalties for violations of a requirement of mandatory reporting of sexual assault and sexual harassment and violations for non-compliance with requirements to submit a company after-action summary, as codified at 46 U.S.C. 10104(a)(2) and 10104(d)(2), are also added to Table 1 in 33 CFR 27.3. An after-action summary summarizes the actions taken after an incident of sexual assault or sexual harassment. These penalties were added by the 2023 NDAA and became effective on December 23, 2022. 27 The Coast Guard also adds a civil penalty for violating vessel escort operations and towing requirements, authorized at 46 U.S.C. 55112(d) as well as a civil penalty for violations of anchorage and vessel movement during a national emergency authorized by 46 U.S.C. 70052(c) under subchapter VI Regulation of Vessels in the Territorial Waters of the United States, an important national security enforcement authority of the Coast Guard.

Table 4 below shows the 2024 adjustment for the remaining penalties that the Coast Guard administers that have previously already been included in Table 1 of 33 CFR 27.3.

The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 for the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1191 Table 1, Item number 1 for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks from 11:30 a.m. until 10:40 p.m. on June 28, 2024. The safety zone will extend to all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet outwards of the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival from the loading location to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11:30 a.m. until 9 p.m. on June 28, 2024, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics from Pier 68 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display location. From 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on June 28, 2024, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 68 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display. Upon commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, between 9:40 p.m. and 10 p.m. on June 28, 2024, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 700 feet out from the fireworks barge near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83). This safety zone will be enforced from 11:30 a.m. until 10:40 p.m. on June 28, 2024, unless the COTP announces a shorter enforcement period via Marine Information Broadcast.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol, defined as a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency on scene to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During the enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of the safety zones you must comply with the direction from the PATCOM or other Official Patrol. The PATCOM or Official Patrol may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish the safety zone by July 6, 2024, to protect the public from potential hazards associated with the planned events and we lack sufficient time to request public comments and respond to these comments before the safety zone must be established.Potential hazards could be falling debris from firework displays launched over the river.

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 and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the City of Point Pleasant Liberty Fest taking place on the Ohio River, between mile marker 265 to 266.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the City of Point Pleasant Liberty Fest will be a safety concern for anyone between mile marker 265 and mile marker 266 on the Ohio River, Point Pleasant, WV, on July 6, 2024. This rule is needed to protect participants, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters for the duration of the event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. on July 6, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within mile marker 265 to miler marker 266 of the Ohio River near Point Pleasant, WV. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would 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 size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone would impact a small, designated area of the Ohio River for 1.5 hours where vessel traffic is normally light. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1.5 hours that will prohibit vessels from entering the navigable waters between mile marker 265 and 266. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule 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.” Id. 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 the public interest. The Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach (COTP) was notified of the impending event less than 15 days in advance and immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazardous associated with the large display of pyrotechnics within the Port of Los Angeles.

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 and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to ensure navigational safety amidst the potential safety hazards associated with the event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the firework show occurring on June 28, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 1,000-foot radius of the pyrotechnics platforms. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters before, during and after the scheduled firework event within the designated safety zones.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 28, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 1,000-foot radius of the pyrotechnics platform located in the Port of Los Angeles main channel in approximate position: 33°44′40″ N 118°16′27″ W. The duration of the zones is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled events. 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. The Coast Guard will be issuing Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule would allow 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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1.5 hours that will prohibit entry within a 1,000-foot radius of the pyrotechnics platform used for the firework event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1 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:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 5 U.S.C. 553(b), originally promulgated as § 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone immediately to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then to consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with fireworks launched from a barge in the waters of the Laguna Madre.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks displays occurring from 9:30 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on the night of July 4, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone in the waters of the Laguna Madre area within a 700-yard radius of the following point; 26°6′02.1″ N, 97°10′17.7″ W. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters who might otherwise be in the safety zone while the display of the fireworks takes place in the Laguna Madre.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the night of July 4, 2024. The safety zone will encompass certain navigable waters of the Laguna Madre defined by a 700-yard radius around the launching platform. The regulated area encompasses a 700-yard radius from the following point; 26°6′02.1″ N, 97°10′17.7″ W. The fireworks display will take place in waters of the Laguna Madre. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under 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, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for a short period of 2.5 hours on the nights of July 4, 2024. The zone is limited to a 700-yard radius from the launching position of in the navigable waters of the Laguna Madre. In addition, the rule does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway, and it allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, does not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's provisions do not apply here.

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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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, 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 establishment of a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Laguna Madre in a zone defined by a 700-yard radius from the following coordinate: 26°6′02.1″ N, 97°10′17.7″ W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by fireworks display in the waters of the Laguna Madre. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact 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:

In FR Doc. 2024-08099 beginning on page 35634 in the Federal Register of Wednesday, May 1, 2024, the following corrections are made:

This action by the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary is taken pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.

Table of Contents I. Background II. Themes From Consultation and Research A. Workforce System Alignment B. Equity III. Regulations A. Definition of Exit B. Work Outcomes Data Sources C. Federal Matching for Calculating Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters D. State-Level Matching for the Supplemental Work Outcomes Report E. Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate IV. Justification for Interim Final Rule V. Collection of Information Requirements A. Reports B. Request for Feedback C. Review and Approval of the Information Collection VI. Regulatory Review and Analysis I. Background

The Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023, Public Law 118-5, requires each state, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to collect and report information relating to work outcomes measures for work-eligible individuals in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. Section 304 of the legislation requires HHS to issue regulations implementing these new requirements. It states, “in order to ensure nationwide comparability of data, the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor and with States, shall issue regulations governing the reporting of performance indicators under this subsection.”

We are updating the existing TANF data regulations (45 CFR part 265, Data Collection and Reporting Requirements) to reflect the new reporting requirements. “Each state . . . shall collect and submit to the Secretary the information necessary for each indicator. . . .” Section 304. “State” is defined to mean “the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.” 42 U.S.C. 619 (5). States and territories must begin reporting on those requirements in fiscal year (FY) 2025. For the remainder of the preamble, we will use the term “states” to refer to states and territories. These provisions do not apply to Tribal TANF programs.

Section 304 of the FRA specifies that to ensure nationwide comparability of data, all states must collect and submit “the information necessary” to determine four indicators of performance. These are:

• Employment Rate—2nd Quarter After Exit: The percentage of individuals who were work-eligible individuals as of the time of exit from the program, who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after the exit;

• Employment Retention Rate—4th Quarter After Exit: The percentage of individuals who were work-eligible individuals as of the time of exit from the program who were in unsubsidized employment in the second quarter after the exit, who are also in unsubsidized employment during the fourth quarter after the exit;

• Median Earnings—2nd Quarter After Exit: The median earnings of individuals who were work-eligible individuals as of the time of exit from the program, who are in unsubsidized employment during the second quarter after the exit; and

• Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate: The percentage of individuals who have not attained 24 years of age, are attending high school or enrolled in an equivalency program, and are work-eligible individuals or were work-eligible individuals as of the time of exit from the program, who obtain a high school degree or its recognized equivalent while receiving assistance under the state program funded under this part or within one year after the exit.

Further, the statute required HHS to consult with states and the Department of Labor (DOL) before issuing regulations. In response, HHS engaged in consultation including issuing a Request for Information (RFI) (88 FR 82902, November 27, 2023) providing states and the general public with an opportunity to provide input, hosted listening sessions with state TANF leadership and data leads, held meetings with the DOL and the Department of Education (ED), and had discussions with practitioners and researchers as part of the Workforce IT Support Center Steering Committee and the National Association of Welfare Research Statistics annual conference. Through these discussions, we identified promising practices and recommendations for policy options.

Written responses to ACF's RFI included responses from state TANF agencies and social services departments, national associations that represent state and county human services agencies, and a small number of advocacy groups. The use of “state” in the summary of comments below refers to both states who responded directly and associations who collected comments and responded on behalf of member states.

TANF's new statutory work outcomes measures are similar to the performance measures established by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA). DOL and ED shared lessons learned from implementing WIOA that inform our implementation of TANF's work outcomes measures, such as factors impacting the implementation timeline and data quality across sources. States also shared their experiences with WIOA and several respondents encouraged ACF—in partnership with DOL—to support opportunities for state workforce and human services agencies to engage in peer learning and information sharing around the new measures. They requested ACF, where possible, foster the alignment through shared definitions, data sources, and report timeframes. They noted that supporting alignment with WIOA outcome reporting strengthens collaboration between TANF and the broader workforce system, which will yield operational efficiencies across programs, identification of promising practices, a more client-centered culture, and improved service delivery.

We appreciate the time and attention that respondents gave to reviewing the RFI and preparing their comments. This IFR seeks to make the new reporting requirements as useful as possible for program improvement, considers the challenges of implementation, and provides flexibility for states when possible.

The Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is committed to improving the equitable administration of all OFA programs for the children and families we serve. In the RFI, we asked in what ways equity should be considered when implementing work outcome measures.

Respondents expressed gratitude for our consideration of equity in the implementation of the work outcomes measures. All noted the advantages of collecting and reporting data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, disability, and other demographic characteristics or geography.

We appreciate the importance of understanding outcome disparities in the TANF program, and we are committed to providing increased technical assistance to states on how to use their own data to understand outcomes disparities in the TANF program so that they can better ensure equity throughout the system.

Respondents also made suggestions for practices in the context of work outcomes that could support equity. We remain committed to supporting states as they identify and explore meaningful ways of addressing disparities and ensuring equity.

The following discussion provides information on the changes we are making in 45 CFR part 265. We discuss how we will operationalize the statutory changes enacted in the FRA related to the reporting of work outcomes under the TANF program.

In § 265.2, “What definitions apply to this part?”, we added definitions of “exit” and “unsubsidized employment” for the purpose of calculating the Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report and the Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate. We also defined “secondary school diploma” and its “recognized equivalent.”

We added two new reporting requirements. States are required to submit the data required for the Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report quarterly and the Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate annually. The regulation also includes the option for states to voluntarily submit their own calculated work outcomes measures. The regulation details what to include in the supplemental report for states who choose to submit one. In addition to submitting the Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report, any state that does not have an Unemployment Insurance program and thus is currently unable to submit quarterly wage data to the ACF-designated wage match source will be required to submit the Supplemental Work Outcomes Report.

Other revisions:

• Section 265.1 What does this part cover?—replaced outdated reference to section 413 (rankings of State TANF programs) with section 411(f).

• Section 265.3 What reports must the State file on a quarterly basis?— added quarterly report Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report and details of (1) Employment Rate—2nd Quarter After Exit; (2) Employment Retention Rate—4th Quarter After Exit; and (3) Median Earnings—2nd Quarter After Exit.

• Section 265.4 When are quarterly reports due?—added Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report.

• Section 265.5 May States use sampling?—clarified that sampling is not allowed for either Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report or Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate and moves that clause to paragraph (d).

• Section 265.6 Must States file reports electronically?—added Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report, Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate, and Supplemental Work Outcomes Report.

• Section 265.7 How will we determine if the State is meeting the quarterly reporting requirements?— added requirements for Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report.

• Section 265.9 What information must the State file annually?—added paragraphs (f), the Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate, and (g), Supplemental Work Outcomes Report.

• Section 265.10 When are annual reports due?—clarified due dates of all annual reports in § 265.9.

The work outcomes measures depend on a definition of what it means to “exit” the TANF program. The legislation defines “exit” as, “with respect to a State program funded under this part, ceases to receive assistance under the program funded by this part.”

We believe, and states concurred during consultation, that further clarification of what it means to “exit” the TANF program is necessary to ensure consistency across states' interpretations of the exiting population. Research studies and state respondents warned about the issue of “churn,” in which individuals and families cycle on and off the TANF caseload due to temporary jobs, shifting life circumstances, sanctions, or terminations of assistance for not meeting program administrative requirements. We note that TANF “leavers” studies from the early 2000s often defined a “leaver” as someone who has left cash assistance for at least two months, while WIOA defines a “common exit” as a participant not receiving DOL-administered services for at least 90 days. 1 DOL, states, researchers, and advocacy organizations all recommended that the TANF work outcomes measures align with WIOA's performance measures as much as possible, in order to support coordination between TANF and WIOA programs and their shared participants. That approach is supported by the statutory language requiring the Department to consult with DOL. For these reasons, and to account for the impact of churn, we are defining “exit” as a family having not received TANF assistance for at least 90 days. We are using “family” in the definition to account for the cases where, for example, due to sanction, the state removes the needs of the work-eligible individual from the assistance payment while continuing to provide assistance to the family. In other words, a work-eligible individual will be included as an exiter in these measures only when their family ceases to receive assistance, and will not meet the definition of an exiter when the needs of the work-eligible individual are removed from the assistance payment but the family continues to receive assistance. An individual in the family must have been “a work-eligible individual,” as defined in 45 CFR 261.2(n)(1), in their last month of assistance.

Multiple respondents to the RFI stressed the importance of taking into account the reasons someone would exit TANF. Some individuals may have been taken off TANF because of a sanction for noncompliance with work activities, while others obtained jobs or moved out of state. States are currently required to report to ACF on the reasons for case closure in section two (2) of the TANF Data Report (ACF-199). However, states interpret and use the reporting categories of reasons for case closure inconsistently. For instance, on average, states reported that 34 percent of closed cases were closed due to “other/unknown” reasons, but across states that percentage ranged from 5 to 98 percent in FY 2022. 2 While OFA has decided not to use this IFR to modify the data reporting elements for case closure, we encourage states to improve the quality of their reporting for the existing data element in the TANF Data Report (ACF-199). OFA will include recommendations in guidance to states on how to improve the quality of this data element.

We note that some states may move individuals out of the TANF program and into separate state programs (funded by maintenance-of-effort funds) or solely state-funded programs (not reported as maintenance-of-effort). For some states, these may be distinctly different programs, while for other states the difference may just be the funding source. The statute clearly states “with respect to State program funded under this part” which refers only to the TANF program, and not separate state programs or solely state-funded programs. Therefore, when considering who exited TANF for this data collection, states should include those work-eligible individuals who were moved to separate state programs or solely-state funded programs and have not received TANF-funded assistance in at least 90 days.

States are proud of the work they are doing to improve TANF outcomes. Some states are already collecting and studying data for employment, retention, and income and are eager to share the results and best practices. These states explained both the benefits and drawbacks of the systems they use. Many included specific timelines, charts, and other visuals to depict the level of complexity involved. Others offered their templates and experience to ACF as we develop guidance and technical assistance products.

States that have already implemented similar measures rely on wage data for administration of state programs, using a combination of sources including state departments of labor, state unemployment insurance wage records, the State Wage Interchange System (SWIS), and the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). 3

Others expressed trepidation around the new measures. Most notably, they expressed concern around the resources and time required to implement data sharing agreements, system changes, and new processes. These commenters welcome a national approach that allows them to maintain their focus on program improvement.

Nearly all respondents noted the value in standard measures and the utility of having a centralized data match at the Federal level to meet the requirement of “nationwide comparability of data” in section 304 of the FRA. They also noted that the employment landscape can vary from region to region and state to state. They requested that ACF provide appropriate context when measures are published. Respondents noted macroeconomics (cost of living, unemployment rates, geography, state minimum wage, impacts of natural disasters etc.), program design and policy (county-administered versus state, benefit caps, political climate), and participant demographics (sex, gender, race, income, family status, disability, formerly incarcerated) as some of the factors that inform the outcome measures.

Taking into consideration the comments we received, ACF is instituting a two-pronged approach: Federal matching for calculating Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters and a Supplemental Work Outcomes Report. Consultations with states and DOL, ED, and others informed our two-pronged approach and raised several important considerations. States expressed concerns about the implementation timeline if state-level data sharing agreements were needed, but other states were concerned about the lag in results with a Federal match that would make the outcomes less useful. ACF heard from various stakeholders that, while a Federal-level match with the NDNH has the benefit of reporting wages earned across state lines and from Federal employment, state-level matches could include other sources of wage data such as self-employment or gig work. Each data source and methodology has its own strengths and shortcomings, and these new measures provide an opportunity for learning about the best tools for assessing and improving outcomes for TANF exiters. More information about Federal matching for calculating Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters and the Supplemental Work Outcomes Report is below.

For the first three statutory measures ( i.e., work outcomes of TANF exiters), states will report information to ACF that is necessary to calculate the measures of work outcomes of TANF exiters at the Federal level. Specifically, states will be required to submit Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of all work-eligible individuals who exit TANF in a given quarter on a quarterly basis. ACF will then match those SSNs with quarterly wage records in the NDNH, which is a national database of wage and employment information on most American workers administered by ACF's Office of Child Support Services. 4 In FY 2022, over 752 million quarterly wage records were submitted to the NDNH. 5 ACF will use these matched results to compute the first three work outcomes measures on behalf of states. This approach will allow for standardized measures and will not require states to initiate new data-sharing agreements at the state level. We understand that Guam does not currently have an Unemployment Insurance program and therefore does not submit quarterly wage data to the NDNH. Guam will still need to submit the Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters report so that ACF is able to capture outcomes of individuals who find work outside of Guam after exiting the Guam TANF Program. In addition, any state, like Guam, that does not have an Unemployment Insurance program and thus is currently unable to submit quarterly wage records to the ACF-designated wage match source will be required to submit the Supplemental Work Outcomes Report. That report will be used to calculate the same performance measures as those in the Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report. We will work closely with Guam to assess the data and provide technical assistance to support calculating the performance measures.

The Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters measures have various operational timelines. The measures themselves specify employment and earnings at different intervals following exit. Further, as noted above, the definition of “exit” includes a 90 day wait period. ACF will provide subsequent guidance on and technical support regarding which “exiters” to include in each quarterly data submission. ACF will run matches each quarter so that states will not need to track or re-identify work-eligible individuals the second and fourth quarters after they exited TANF.

ACF will continue to explore how to share information gained from the Federal-level match to make the data available to and useful for state TANF programs, in addition to satisfying the reporting requirements of the FRA. This may involve providing preliminary match results to states on a quarterly basis before the data have settled and been finalized.

Several states requested the option to provide additional data that would enrich the outcomes generated from a centralized data match. The states that have systems and data-sharing agreements in place believe those systems to be timelier and more comprehensive. Notably, some states reported that they will continue to produce their own performance measure reports due not only to local statutory requirements but also to support program partnership and continuous improvement. ACF wants to empower states to analyze their own data for program improvement and policy decision-making. To support this effort, these regulations establish an additional Supplemental Work Outcomes Report to be submitted annually by interested states. This will allow states that already have performance reporting infrastructure in place to provide calculated outcomes measures results with alternative data sources. The report will include documentation of data sources and methodology to assess validity and support ongoing learning and identification of best practices. ACF will encourage this voluntary submission as a way for states and the Federal government to promote and learn more about alternative data sources as compared to matching to wage data at the Federal level. ACF will report on findings from the Supplemental Work Outcomes Report as part of ongoing learning and context for state performance measures. This report will be mandatory for any state, like Guam, that does not have an Unemployment Insurance program and is thus unable to submit quarterly wage data to the ACF-designated wage match source. The Supplemental Work Outcomes Report also provides an avenue for continued alignment with WIOA performance measures; states that have highly coordinated TANF and workforce agencies could demonstrate the benefits of state-level data matching (potentially through SWIS) and the addition of supplemental wage information, such as for those who are self-employed or participate in gig work and are not systematically captured in quarterly wage records. ACF is committed to providing technical assistance and support to states interested in developing their own infrastructure to calculate work outcomes, including helping develop relationships across state agencies, data system modifications, data sharing agreements, and data analysis capacity. ACF began this work with the TANF Data Collaborative  6 and plans to continue to find innovative ways to support states as they focus on better outcomes for TANF recipients and exiters.

ACF has experience with TANF outcomes measures similar to the ones that the Work Outcomes for TANF Exiters Report will capture, through the former High Performance Bonus measures, 42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4), and more recently for performance measures that are reported as part of the Congressional Budget Justification. However, ACF has little experience collecting information related to the Secondary School Diploma or its Recognized Equivalent Attainment Rate (hereafter Secondary School Diploma Attainment Rate) for TANF participants and exiters. States reported to us that they also have little experience with this type of measure and anticipated that it would be more difficult to implement.

The Secondary School Diploma Attainment Rate measure presents its own unique challenges, and states have requested support for implementing this measure. Participant surveys may be the most direct way to obtain the data; however, states requested technical assistance to increase survey response rates. In addition, states want guidance for navigating the complex network of educational systems and setting up data-sharing agreements with the various entities involved.

We learned from our research, consultations, and the RFI that some states have existing longitudinal databases and cross-department agreements that would be well-suited for calculating these measures. Other states did not have this type of existing access and infrastructure. The ED, DOL, and respondents to the RFI emphasized that there are multiple ways a person may earn a secondary school diploma or recognized equivalent, including but not limited to adult school/education, community college, or public or private high school within K-12 systems. Local education agencies often have different geographical maps from TANF offices or workforce investment boards. For some states, secondary school equivalency testing may be independent of state government, while for others, such testing may be managed by state education agencies.

The wide range of structures and readiness for collecting information for this measure across states led us to the decision to leave the data source selection up to the states, following sub-regulatory guidance from ACF. ACF will provide thorough guidance and technical support for the calculation of the rate, including who belongs in the numerator and denominator. States must use universe-level data in their calculations, meaning that the rate should be based on the entire population that meets the criteria and not a sample of that population.

ACF recognizes that the typical secondary academic calendar is at odds with the Federal fiscal year and annual submission of the data for the Secondary School Diploma Attainment Rate. This is further complicated by the range of timelines of the various data sources and tracking individuals after exit. We note that the Secondary School Diploma Attainment Rate submission is on a longer lag because of the nature and complexity of the data and the 1-year post-exit wait period. ACF will provide guidance on and technical support regarding the reporting periods that should be covered in a given annual report. We acknowledge states are only able to submit information known to them at the time of reporting and commit to providing additional guidance to manage the level of effort associated with tracking this small subset of TANF participants.

ACF intends to support states in finding innovative ways to collect this information. ACF will ask for sources and methodology as part of the reporting to assess validity of the measure and to support ongoing learning and identification of best practices. Our Federal partners have learned a lot already from states' implementation of WIOA's credential attainment measure, which has some helpful parallels.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to follow certain procedures when promulgating rules. 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. Under section 553(b)(B)) of the APA, however, a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons in the rule issued) that notice and public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We find that good cause exists because, under the specific circumstances here, it is impracticable to provide an opportunity for notice and comment prior to issuing this rule.

Providing notice and comment before issuing this rule was impracticable because of the limited time period following the statute's enactment in June 2023 for ACF to consult with states and DOL and then promulgate regulations with sufficient lead-time for states to make necessary system changes to comply with the statutory reporting obligations beginning on October 1, 2024. States will need to plan for, budget, and implement systems changes to comply with data collection and reporting requirements for fiscal year 2025. This may require states to reallocate their budgets, modify existing contracts, and/or enter into new ones, modify and/or enter into new data sharing agreements, and create and/or modify systems for data collection. We are issuing an IFR so that states have time to complete each of these necessary steps before the October 1, 2024, compliance date.

It also was not practicable to provide notice and comment because we needed time to consult with the DOL and with states, as required by section 304 of the FRA, prior to issuing regulations. In addition to being statutorily mandated, the consultation period was necessary to allow ACF to obtain state input on a number of technical questions before moving forward with the rule making process. This technical information from states was key to the agency's thinking and approach around this rulemaking. Consultations with DOL and ED began in July 2023, just one month after the statute was enacted, and have continued throughout the development of this regulation.

The consultation period, described in greater detail in section II above, included a RFI which was published on November 27, 2023. ACF had received 24 comments on the RFI by January 11, 2024. The RFI outlined several possible approaches and factors that needed to be considered and sought public comment. Those comments informed the approach set forth in this IFR.

In addition to issuing the RFI, ACF met with states and conducted listening sessions between September 2023 and January 2024. Almost all states, whether during listening sessions or in response to the RFI, requested that ACF expedite the issuance of regulations and develop guidance as soon as possible. Many respondents wrote that it will take several months or more to set up the necessary infrastructure required to respond to the requirements of the FRA. States specifically requested that the Department convey as soon as possible how it is interpreting Congress' definition of the statutory term “exit” so that states could provide the specifications necessary to their contractors or in-house developers so that they could begin the task of system changes. In anticipation of the implementation, some states have initiated system changes without the definition of “exit,” whereas others are waiting on guidance so that they do not risk costly updates that need to be modified. Further delay of the regulation could lead to states applying the statute ineffectively or inconsistently, which could ultimately reduce the data quality and comparability of the measures. Our goal has been to issue regulations as soon as possible so that states can make sound decisions on the allocation of resources and operationalize plans in time for the fiscal year 2025 reporting deadlines.

We believe that issuing an IFR is in the interest of the entities that must meet the reporting requirements, and the effective date for this IFR is justified and reasonable. Although this IFR is being published with an effective date of October 1, 2024, we encourage interested parties to provide comments through December 26, 2024, so that we may have the benefit of public participation in advance of issuing a final rule. ACF will modify the IFR's provisions if warranted by public comments. As we implement the IFR, we welcome public comments on any relevant implementation issues, and we will take those comments into consideration in developing the final rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., provides that a Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

This interim final rule includes the following new information collections.

As required by PRA, we will submit the proposed information collection(s) to OMB for review and approval.

Work Outcomes of TANF Exiters Report: Quarterly, states will be required to submit Social Security numbers (SSNs) of all work-eligible individuals who exit TANF in a given quarter. Each state must file the report within 45 days following the end of the quarter (QE). The report must contain the SSNs of all individuals who are confirmed to have exited during the reporting period. An individual's exit date is confirmed when 90 days have elapsed since the participant last received assistance. States submit SSNs 45 days after the QE in which their exit date was confirmed. For example:

Secondary School Diploma Attainment Rate: Annually, states will be asked to submit their calculated rate following the definitions and formula set by ACF. The report must include documentation of methodology and data sources.

Supplemental Work Outcomes Report: Annually, states have the option to submit the state's calculation of the first three work outcomes, following the definitions and formulas set by ACF. The report must include documentation of methodology and data sources. Any state like Guam that does not have an Unemployment Insurance program and thus is currently unable to submit quarterly wage records to the ACF-designated wage match source will be required to submit the Supplemental Work Outcomes Report.

In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the ACF is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. You can request copies of the proposed collections by emailing infocollection@acf.hhs.gov. ACF requests comments on these new collections, including but not limited to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and the estimated time to complete.

ACF is particularly interested in feedback on the estimated time to complete each of the new information collections. Currently, ACF is estimating the time to complete as follows:

In estimating time to complete, you should include the time associated with activities necessary to complete the requests. This should include the time associated with the following example activities (as applicable):

Submit comments to infocollection@acf.hhs.gov by August 27, 2024. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within the timeframe specified.

The comments received in response to this notification will fulfill the requirement for a 60-day comment period in compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. We will submit an information collection request for these new proposed collections to OMB for review and approval following consideration of public comment. These requirements will not become effective until approved by OMB.

We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 14094, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801, Pub. L. 104-121), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct us to assess all benefits, costs, and transfers of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Rules are “significant” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f)(1) (as amended by Executive Order 14094), if they “have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of [the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)] for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or tribal governments or communities.” This interim final rule implements the data collection and reporting requirements of section 304 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which could entail a small incremental increase in time spent by state governments for these activities. Thus, this interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f)(1).

Because this rule is not likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meet other criteria specified in the Congressional Review Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, this interim final rule does not fall within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. The Secretary certifies that this interim final rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on state governments, which are not considered small entities under the RFA.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) generally requires that each agency conduct a cost-benefit analysis, identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule before promulgating any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in at least one year by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation using the Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product is $183 million, reported in 2023 dollars. This interim final rule will not result in an unfunded mandate in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the OFA amends 45 CFR part 265 as follows:

On April 8, 2022, PHMSA published a final rule titled “Pipeline Safety: Requirement of Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards”  1 (Valve Rule) amending the Federal pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR parts 190 through 199) to, among other provisions, require the installation of rupture-mitigation valves (RMV) or alternative equivalent technologies and establish minimum performance standards for the operation of those valves to mitigate the public safety and environmental consequences of ruptures on gas and hazardous liquid (including carbon dioxide) pipelines. On May 16, 2023, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Valve Rule's regulatory amendments as they applied to gathering pipelines (gathering lines). 2

Subsequently, on August 1, 2023, PHMSA issued “Pipeline Safety: Requirement of Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards: Technical Corrections,” 88 FR 50056 (Aug. 1, 2023) (Correction Rule), which updated provisions of the pipeline safety regulations, as amended by the Valve Rule, to codify the D.C. Circuit's decision. On August 30, 2023, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and GPA Midstream Association (GPA) jointly filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Correction Rule. The Petition requested two regulatory amendments pertaining to the D.C. Circuit's May 2023 decision.

First, API and GPA noted that, although § 192.9(c) provides an exception for Type A gathering lines from the requirements at § 192.617(b) through (d), corresponding references to Type A gathering lines remained within § 192.617(c) and (d). API and GPA requested PHMSA remove those references within § 192.617(c) and (d) to better conform to the D.C. Circuit decision.

Second, API and GPA also noted that, although PHMSA amended the definition of “notification of potential rupture” at §§ 192.3 and 195.2 to exclude gathering lines, that exclusion was not made explicit within a companion provision in operating requirements at § 192.635(a). API and GPA requested PHMSA add a disclaimer to § 192.635 to align with the changes made to the definition for “notification of potential rupture” to conform with the D.C. Circuit order specifying that § 192.635(a) is not applicable to gas gathering lines. PHMSA recently granted the Petition by response letter to GPA and API. 3

On September 22, 2023, GPA and API filed a “Supplement Letter” to the Petition requesting revision of § 195.418(b)(2)(ii) (regarding the spacing interval of shut-off valves on transmission pipeline segments carrying highly volatile liquids) and the groups filed an additional “Supplement Letter” on May 30, 2024, requesting revision of § 195.260(c) (regarding spacing from endpoints of transmission pipeline segments in high consequence areas). PHMSA denied each of these supplements as an untimely petition for reconsideration, and, according to § 190.335(a), will assess them as petitions for rulemaking under §§ 190.331 and 190.333.

In response to the August 30, 2023, Petition, PHMSA makes the following further amendments to the pipeline safety regulations in conformity with the D.C. Circuit decision. PHMSA revises § 192.617(b) through (d) to remove references to Type A gas gathering lines from those requirements and clarify that those provisions are inapplicable to gas gathering lines. Additionally, PHMSA revises § 192.635 to add a disclaimer explicitly stating that section does not apply to gas gathering lines within a new paragraph (c) to align with the previously revised definition for “notification of potential rupture” at § 192.3. Making these amendments conforms to the D.C. Circuit decision.

This document is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. Among the statutory authorities delegated to PHMSA are the authorities vested in the Secretary under the Federal Pipeline Safety Statutes (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ). Section 60102(a) authorizes issuance of regulations governing design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, extension, operation, replacement, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. See also 49 U.S.C. 60102(n) (requiring the Secretary to issue regulations requiring the installation of RMVs or equivalent technology on new and entirely replaced transmission lines). Other authorities delegated to PHMSA include 49 U.S.C. 5103 (regulatory authority to prescribe regulations for transportation of hazardous materials) and 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3) (authority to prescribe reporting requirements for pipelines traversing Federal lands). 4

PHMSA finds it has good cause to make the judicially conforming corrections without notice and comment pursuant to section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ). Section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The APA good cause exception applies “when rulemaking without notice and comment is a reasonable and perhaps inevitable response to a court order” such that the court order would make additional comment “utterly unnecessary.” EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 134-35 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). These corrections rectify unintended omissions from PHMSA's August 1, 2023, Correction Rule to ensure the regulations conform with judicial review of the final Valve Rule. Good cause exists to further ensure part 192 conforms with the D.C. Circuit's order, 5 and PHMSA finds that additional comment on these corrections is unnecessary as no comment here can “change[ ] that fact” of the court's order to vacate the Valve Rule amendments as to gathering lines. See EME Homer, 795 F.3d at 135.

Similarly, good cause authorizes the immediate effective date of these additional corrections. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that a rule should take effect not less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , except for when good cause is found by the agency and published within the rule allowing for earlier effect. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). “[T]he purpose of the thirty-day waiting period is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. F.C.C., 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996). PHMSA finds that, for the same reasons stated above, there is good cause under section 553(d)(3) of the APA to make these revisions effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

This document has been evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), 6 Executive Order 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), 7 and DOT Order 2100.6A (“Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures”) and is considered not significant; therefore, this document has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). PHMSA finds that the conforming corrections herein impose no incremental compliance costs beyond those assessed earlier in the Valve Rule, nor do they adversely affect safety, as the corrections merely codify the results of judicial review limiting the scope of application of the Valve Rule, and otherwise are consistent with the Valve Rule.

The analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996 (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply when the agency finds good cause under the APA to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. 8 Because PHMSA has “good cause” under the APA to forego comment on the corrections herein, no RFA analysis is required.

The corrections in this document impose no new or revised information collection requirements. As explained above, the changes being made in this document are non-substantive, and they will require no change to the current incident and annual reporting forms and their respective instructions as discussed in the preamble of the Valve Rule.

PHMSA analyzed the corrections in this document pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) and determined that the corrections do not impose enforceable duties of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year, on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. Because the corrections impose no new incremental compliance costs beyond those already assessed in the Valve Rule, PHMSA's earlier UMRA analysis prepared for the Valve Rule need not be changed. 9

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. PHMSA analyzed the Valve Rule in accordance with NEPA, implementing Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and DOT implementing policies (DOT Order 5610.1C, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”) and determined the Valve Rule would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 10 PHMSA has determined that the corrections in this document have no effect on its earlier NEPA analysis, as the corrections simply reflect the Valve Rule as modified by judicial review.

PHMSA has analyzed this document in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). 11 PHMSA has previously determined that the Valve Rule did not impose any substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, see 87 FR at 20978. Because the judicially conforming corrections herein are consistent with the Valve Rule as modified by judicial review, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 12

PHMSA analyzed the Valve Rule and determined that the requirements of Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”)  13 did not apply. These judicially conforming corrections to the Valve Rule are not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, as they are not a significant regulatory action, and they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use. Further, OMB has not designated the corrections herein as a significant energy action.

This document was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”)  14 and DOT Order 5301.1 (“Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes”). Because none of the corrections in this final rule have tribal implications or impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Under Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), 15 agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The judicially conforming corrections to the Valve Rule in this document do not impact international trade.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

The purpose of these corrections is to conform with the outcome of judicial review of the Valve Rule. The provisions amended herein focus on disparate topics. Therefore, PHMSA finds that each correction in this rule is severable and able to function independently from the others. Further, these provisions are severable from the Correction Rule and from the Valve Rule. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of the unique amendments in this rule, the remaining provisions should stand, thus allowing their continued effect.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA makes the following correcting amendments to 49 CFR part 192:

I. Background and Need for Technical Correction

On April 29, 2024, PHMSA published a final rule titled “Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments,”  1 which incorporates by reference all or parts of more than 20 new or updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards. The amendments in the final rule allow pipeline operators to use current technologies, improved materials, and updated industry and management practices. Additionally, the final rule clarified certain regulatory provisions and made several editorial corrections. This notice identifies a technical correction at 49 CFR 192.121(c)(2)(iv), as set forth below. The final rule inadvertently deleted or omitted text found at Table 1 under § 192.121(c)(2)(iv). The publication of this correction is needed to ensure that the final rule reads as intended.

Statutory authority for this notice's correction to the final rule, as with the final rule itself, whose discussion of statutory authority at Section VI., 89 FR 33264, is adopted herein by reference, is provided by the Federal Pipeline Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ). The Secretary delegated his authority under the Federal Pipeline Safety Act to the PHMSA Administrator under 49 CFR 1.97.

PHMSA finds it has good cause to make this correction without notice and comment pursuant to section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ). Section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. As explained above, the textual alterations herein consist of an editorial and technical correction, including revision to or codification of regulatory language inadvertently deleted or omitted by the final rule, consistent with statements in the administrative record. The technical correction makes no substantive changes to the final rule but merely facilitate its implementation by aligning the regulatory text with the explanatory material in the final rule's preamble, amendatory text, and administrative record. Because the final rule is the product of an extensive administrative record with numerous opportunities for public comment, including through written comments and the Pipeline Advisory Committees, PHMSA finds that additional comment on the correction herein is unnecessary.

The immediate effective date of the correction contained in this document is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA. Section 553(d)(3) provides that a rule should take effect “not less than 30 days” after publication in the Federal Register , except for when good cause is found by the agency and published within the rule, thus allowing for earlier effectiveness. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). “[T]he purpose of the thirty-day waiting period is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. F.C.C., 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996). PHMSA finds that good cause under section 553(d)(3) of the APA supports making the revisions effective upon publication in the Federal Register because the editorial and technical correction at § 192.121 (c)(2)(iv) is consistent with the preamble of the final rule and Advisory Committee discussions on the subject.

This correction has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant under each of Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”)  2 and 14094 (“Modernizing Regulatory Review”), 3 and DOT Order 2100.6A (“Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures”); therefore, this notice has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). PHMSA finds that the editorial and technical correction herein, in all respects consistent with the final rule, imposes no incremental compliance costs nor adversely affects safety, as it merely corrects a non-substantive typographical error made during the drafting of the final rule and restores the intent of the final rule as discussed in its preamble and supporting documentation.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires agencies to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency head certifies that a rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and differing compliance standards for small businesses, where possible to do so and still meet the objectives of applicable regulatory statutes. Executive Order 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”)  4 requires agencies to establish procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and to “thoroughly review draft rules to assess and take appropriate account of the potential impact” of the rules on small businesses, governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. The DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. 5

As explained in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), PHMSA found that the final rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 6 Therefore, PHMSA expects that these corrections—like the amendments in the final rule—will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the technical corrections herein will impose no new incremental compliance costs, PHMSA understands the analysis in the FRFA remains unchanged.

The correction in this document imposes no new or revised information collection requirements beyond those discussed in the final rule.

PHMSA analyzed the correction in this notice under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) and determined that the corrections to the final rule herein do not impose enforceable duties of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year, on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector. PHMSA prepared an analysis of the UMRA considerations in the final rule, which is available in the docket for the rulemaking. Because the correction herein will impose no new incremental compliance costs, the analysis in that UMRA discussion for the final rule remains unchanged.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. PHMSA analyzed the final rule in accordance with NEPA, implementing Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOT implementing policies (DOT Order 5610.1C, “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”) and determined the final rule would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. 7 The correction to the final rule in this notice has no effect on PHMSA's earlier NEPA analysis, as it is consistent with, and facilitates compliance with, the final rule.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. The DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provided, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

PHMSA has analyzed this correction in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). 8 The correction herein is consistent with, and facilitates compliance with, the final rule, and does not have any substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government beyond what was accounted for in the final rule. This notice does not contain any provision that imposes any substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, nor any new provision that preempts State law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”)  9 requires federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” The correction herein does not invoke any issues under Executive Order 13211.

This correction was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”)  10 and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). Executive Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A require DOT Operating Administrations to assure meaningful and timely input from Native American tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities, or the relationship and distribution of power between the Federal Government and Native American tribes. Because the correction herein does not have Tribal implications or impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Under Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), 11 agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The correction to the final rule in this notice does not impact international trade.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specification of materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The final rule adopted more than 20 new or updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards. The correction herein does not change the final rule's analysis.

Executive Order 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”)  12 directed the federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” The correction herein does not invoke any cybersecurity issues.

This correction does not present any issues with severability.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

In FR Doc. 2024-08624 that appears on page 33281 of the Federal Register on Monday, April 29, 2024, the following correction is made:

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

On October 23, 2023, NMFS implemented the final rule for Amendment 53 to the FMP (88 FR 65135, September 21, 2023). Among other measures for gag, the final rule specified the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) in 2024 at 128,096 pounds (lb) or 58,103 kilograms (kg) [50 CFR 622.190(a)(7)(ii)]. However, on April 26, 2024, NMFS implemented an accountability measure (AM) for the commercial harvest of gag, because commercial landings in 2023 exceeded the commercial ACL that year (89 FR 21214, March 27, 2024). The commercial AM reduced the commercial ACL of gag for the 2024 fishing year to 62,922 lb (28,541 kg).

Under 50 CFR 622.193(c)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for the harvest of gag during the rest of the fishing year when its ACL, which is equivalent to the commercial quota specified in § 622.190(a)(7), has been reached or is projected to be reached. NMFS projects that commercial landings of gag will reach the adjusted commercial quota for the 2024 fishing year. Therefore, the commercial sector of gag is closed beginning June 30, 2024, and will remain closed through December 31, 2024.

The recreational harvest of gag in the South Atlantic is also closed for the rest of 2024 (89 FR 19513, March 19, 2024). Therefore, gag may not be harvested or possessed in or from South Atlantic Federal waters during this commercial closure, and the sale or purchase of gag from the South Atlantic is prohibited. These prohibitions apply to any person on a vessel issued a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper in South Atlantic Federal waters or state waters. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to gag that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold before the effective period of this commercial closure, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor [50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(i)]. The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper with gag on the vessel must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such gag before June 30, 2024.

The 2025 fishing season for the commercial harvest of South Atlantic gag opens again on May 1, 2025 [50 CFR 622.183(b)(1)].

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.193(c)(1)(i), 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 are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial closure of the gag have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the commercial closure to protect the gag resource in the South Atlantic. The capacity of the commercial fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota, and any delay in the closure could result in the exceedance of the applicable quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest that exceeds the commercial quota.

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

NMFS manages the Gulf reef fish fishery that includes gag under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP, which was approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) through regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights described in this temporary rule are in gutted weight.

On June 1, 2024, NMFS implemented a final rule for Amendment 56 to the FMP that modified management of gag in the Gulf EEZ (89 FR 40419, May 10, 2024). For gag, that final rule revised the commercial and recreational catch levels, the recreational AMs, and the recreational fishing season. For the recreational sector, the revised recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for 2024 is 288,000 pounds (lb) (130,635 kilograms (kg)), and the recreational ACT is 230,000 lb (104,326 kg) (50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(i)). These catch limits are based on the projections from the most recent stock assessment, which included estimates of recreational landings in Florida derived from and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's State Reef Fish Survey (SRFS). The revised recreational AM states that if recreational landings reach or are projected to reach the applicable recreational ACT, then NMFS will close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year (50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(ii)). The recreational AMs also state that if NMFS estimates that gag recreational landings have exceeded the applicable recreational ACL and gag is overfished, then in the following fishing year, the recreational ACL and recreational ACT will be reduced by the amount of the recreational ACL overage in the prior fishing year unless the best scientific information available determines that greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary (50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(iii)). The final rule also implemented a seasonal closure of the gag recreational sector to prohibit harvest annually from January 1 through August 31 in the Gulf EEZ (50 CFR 622.34(e)).

In 2023, NMFS implemented a temporary rule to reduce overfishing of gag while the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council developed Amendment 56 (88 FR 27701, May 3, 2023; 88 FR 69553, October 6, 2023). The temporary rule reduced the 2023 recreational ACL for gag to 403,759 lb (183,142 kg). The 2023 recreational ACL was derived, in part, using landings estimates for Florida from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Fishing Effort Survey (FES). Final 2023 landings estimates from MRIP-FES were 737,706 lb (334,618 kg).

Because the catch limits in the final rule for Amendment 56 were derived, in part, using estimates from SRFS, these catch limits are not directly comparable to the 2023 catch limits. To determine the magnitude of the 2023 overage as compared to the 2024 ACL, NMFS calibrated the 2023 recreational ACL and recreational landings to be consistent with the estimates produced by SRFS. This calibration results in a 2023 recreational ACL of 211,588 lb (95,975 kg) and 2023 recreational landings of 336,182 lb (152,490 kg), which exceed the ACL by 124,624 lb (56,528 kg). Therefore consistent with the recreational AM at 50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(iii) the 2024 recreational ACL and ACT are reduced by the amount of the 2023 recreational ACL overage. For the 2024 fishing year, the resulting adjusted recreational ACL is 163,376 lb (74,106 kg) and the adjusted recreational ACT is 105,376 lb (47,798 kg).

The 2024 recreational fishing season opens on September 1, and NMFS projects that the 2024 adjusted recreational ACT for Gulf gag of 105,376 lb (47,798 kg) will be reached as of September 16, 2024. This closure date is based on projected harvest rates using recreational landings from 2020 through 2023, and the evaluation of five scenarios that generated closure dates ranging from September 13, 2024, to September 22, 2024. To increase the likelihood of constraining harvest to the 2024 adjusted recreational ACT, NMFS is acting conservatively by implementing a closure date near the low end of the projections. Accordingly, this temporary rule closes the recreational sector for Gulf gag effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, on September 16, 2024, through the end of the fishing year on December 31, 2024.

During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits of gag in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero. The prohibition on possession of gag also applies in state waters of the Gulf for any vessel issued a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), which were issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations associated with the closure of recreational harvest of gag at 50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(ii) and the reduction of the gag recreational ACL and ACT at 50 CFR 622.41(d)(2)(iii) have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure based on the adjusted ACT. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and many of those affected by the length of the recreational fishing seasons, particularly for-hire operations that book trips for clients in advance, need as much notice as NMFS is able to provide to adjust their business plans to account for changes to the recreational fishing season.

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102, and the final 2024 allocations were published on December 21, 2023 (88 FR 88266).

The final rule implementing amendment 5 to the FMP, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider three criteria in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations: (1) the transfers or combinations would not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; (2) the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and (3) the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional Administrator has determined these three criteria have been met for the transfer approved in this notification.

Virginia is transferring 490 pounds (lb; 222 kilograms (kg)) to Massachusetts through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2024 are: Virginia, 1,895,267 lb (859,679 kg); and Massachusetts, 608,183 lb (275,867 kg).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.