The agencies are issuing final interagency guidance (final guidance) on ROVs of residential real estate valuations. 1 The agencies considered the comments received on the proposed guidance, and as a result, made several edits to the final guidance, including clarifying the guidance's scope. The agencies are finalizing the guidance largely as proposed. This guidance is intended to highlight risks associated with deficient residential real estate valuations, describe how financial institutions may incorporate ROV processes and controls into risk management functions, and provide examples of ROV policies and procedures that institutions may choose to implement. Collateral valuations, including appraisals, 2 are important to the integrity of the residential real estate lending process. Deficient collateral valuations can contain inaccuracies due to errors, omissions, or discrimination  3 that affect the value conclusion and can result in either overvaluing or undervaluing real estate collateral. The Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC have previously issued guidance that describes actions a financial institution may take to correct deficiencies identified in collateral valuations. 4 These actions include ordering a second appraisal or evaluation or resolving the deficiency through the original appraiser or preparer of the evaluation. 5

Prior to the efforts to adopt this joint guidance, the agencies had not, collectively, issued guidance specific to ROV processes. The agencies had received questions and comments from financial institutions and other industry stakeholders on ROVs. Stakeholders highlighted the uncertainty in the industry on how ROVs intersect with appraisal independence requirements and compliance with Federal consumer protection laws, including those related to nondiscrimination. As such, the final guidance addresses some of the questions raised by stakeholders. For purposes of the final guidance, an ROV is a request from the financial institution to the appraiser or other preparer of the valuation report to reassess the report based upon potential deficiencies or other information that may affect the value conclusion. 6

On July 21, 2023, the agencies published for comment proposed guidance on ROVs of residential real estate valuations (proposal). 7 The 60-day comment period ended on September 19, 2023. The agencies invited comment on all aspects of the proposed guidance from all interested parties. In particular, the agencies requested comment on the following: (1) to what extent the proposed guidance describes suitable considerations for a financial institution to take into account in assessing and potentially modifying its current ROV policies and procedures; (2) suggestions for ROV model forms or model policies and procedures, if any, that would be helpful for the agencies to recommend; (3) suggestions for other guidance that may be helpful to financial institutions concerning the development of ROV processes; and (4) to what extent, if any, the proposed ROV guidance conflicts with, duplicates, or complements the existing Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines (Guidelines) or a financial institution's policies and procedures to implement those Guidelines. The agencies collectively received more than 45 unique comment letters from banking organizations, real estate companies, trade associations, nonprofits, The Appraisal Foundation (TAF), 8 an automated valuation model (AVM) developer, loan officers, appraisers, and other individuals.

In general, many commenters supported the agencies' issuance of interagency guidance specific to ROV processes. Some of these commenters agreed with the proposal's focus on the importance of credible collateral valuations, compliance with nondiscrimination laws, and safeguarding appraiser independence. Other commenters asserted that additional clarity in the guidance is necessary and provided recommendations. A few commenters, including certain credit unions, trade associations, and appraisers, opposed the guidance or aspects of the guidance on the grounds that it would be overly burdensome for institutions or place undue pressure on appraisers which could lead to overvaluation.

Commenters expressed mixed views on whether ROV processes should be uniform across all institutions. Some commenters recommended adding more prescriptive elements to the guidance, while others asserted that the guidance should be broad and flexible, as proposed. Some commenters believed that many of the proposal's policies and procedures should be mandatory.

In response to comments received, the agencies made several clarifying edits to the final guidance, including clearly stating the scope of transactions covered by the guidance. The agencies underscore that supervisory guidance does not have the force and effect of law or regulation and does not impose any new requirements on supervised institutions. 9 The guidance is intended to provide a flexible, risk-based approach to ROV processes that institutions can adjust to their unique profile. The justification for and benefits of the agencies' approach, and the agencies' consideration of specific comments, are discussed further below.

Commenters offered views on certain terms used in the proposal, including the terms “ROV,” “comparable sale,” and “specific and verifiable information.” Commenters also expressed views on the scope of transactions covered by the guidance.

One commenter requested that the agencies revise the definition of “ROV” to remove the language “that may affect the value conclusion.”  10 This commenter expressed concern that including this language could result in a lender exerting pressure on an appraiser to change a value that does not satisfy the lender. Another commenter asserted that the proposal's use of the term “ROV” might be too limiting as it focuses on “value” and suggested the broader term “Appraisal Reconsideration” instead. A commenter suggested that the definition of “ROV” be amended to provide that an agent of the institution, such as an appraisal management company (AMC), could initiate an ROV request.

Alternative descriptions suggested by commenters could result in overly broad or narrow descriptions and would not capture the appropriate types of requests. Therefore, the agencies believe the description of the term “ROV” in the proposed guidance captures the intended scope and the final guidance does not change that description. The agencies decline to incorporate the term “Appraisal Reconsideration” into the final guidance, as it implies that appraisals are the sole type of valuation subject to ROVs.

One commenter requested that the agencies clearly define the term “comparable sale”  11 in the context of the content of an ROV request, which may include comparable properties not previously identified. A commenter recommended that the agencies clarify the term “specific and verifiable information” in connection with a consumer providing specific and verifiable information that may not have been available or considered when the initial valuation and review were performed. The same commenter requested that the agencies provide clear examples of both valid and invalid data in the context of consumer-provided “specific and verifiable information.”

The agencies considered the comments regarding “comparable sale” and “specific and verifiable information.” Under the provisions of title XI of the FIRREA, the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) of TAF sets appraisal standards in connection with federally related transactions, which it does through the development and publication of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). 12 What constitutes a “comparable sale” and “specific and verifiable information” fall within the purview of the ASB and USPAP. Therefore, the agencies decline to provide definitions or examples related to those terms in the final guidance.

Some commenters questioned the scope of the term “residential real estate” in connection with the types of transactions that the guidance covers. One commenter asserted that “residential real estate” likely encompassed single-unit dwellings like standalone homes, condos, co-ops, and townhouses. Another commenter stated that their interpretation of the proposal's scope was that it included loans for properties that borrowers plan to live in as their primary residence.

Commenters made specific suggestions regarding the type of loans the guidance should cover. In particular, a commenter suggested that the guidance should only extend to loans secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property, excluding multi-family dwellings. Another commenter recommended that loans to small businesses, corporations, partnerships, and trusts should be covered by the guidance, because the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) applies to any extension of credit to those entities. Finally, a commenter asserted that the guidance should cover all types of real estate-related credit, including multi-family and commercial.

The agencies considered the comments regarding the scope of “residential real estate,” as well as the comments in favor of expansion of the guidance's scope. In response, the agencies revised the guidance to clearly state that the scope of the final guidance is intended to be limited to real estate-related financial transactions that are secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property. 13 The considerations and principles included in the guidance are targeted towards single 1-to-4 family residential transactions and thus are best suited for those types of transactions. Other types of transactions may involve different considerations.

Some commenters recommended that the final guidance take a more prescriptive approach, suggesting specific amendments to the guidance, urging uniformity and standardization of ROV processes across institutions, and endorsing the development of model forms, checklists, and policies. Other commenters supported the proposal's more flexible and principles-based approach to the guidance.

Many commenters made specific suggestions that the agencies provide more granularity and prescriptiveness in the guidance in particular areas. With regard to second appraisals, one commenter recommended that the guidance should outline the circumstances under which a financial institution must request a second appraisal. One commenter asserted that the guidance should provide examples of when, if ever, it is reasonable to pass on the cost of a second appraisal to the consumer. A commenter recommended that, if the agencies determined that it was never acceptable to pass on the cost of a second appraisal to the consumer, the guidance should clearly state that, and should also clarify to whom the fee could be assessed. Another commenter more generally requested clear guidelines on handling second appraisals.

With regard to data submitted with an ROV request, commenters requested that the guidance define what types of data or items a consumer should or should not include. For example, one commenter suggested that alleged appraiser remarks should not be included. Another commenter requested that the guidance specify that data provided by consumers with the ROV request should not include separate valuations for the same property ( e.g., a separate appraisal or evaluation). A commenter recommended that information that was unavailable as of the appraisal's effective date should not be included with the ROV request. Finally, a commenter requested specificity on which alternate market data should be provided with an ROV request and whether it should be limited to sales that closed prior to the date of the appraisal.

Other commenters focused on adding detail to the guidance related to consumer and appraiser education and communication. One commenter requested that the agencies provide additional clarity on the process to inform consumers about how to raise valuation concerns early in the underwriting process. Another commenter suggested consumer education should be incorporated as a standard component in the ROV process. A commenter emphasized the importance of appraiser education and training on how to recognize and avoid bias. Another commenter requested additional examples of ROV policies and procedures to improve communications with consumers.

The agencies received several comments regarding timelines of ROV processes. A commenter requested that the agencies incorporate a set timeline for an ROV process into the guidance. Another commenter requested that the agencies consider whether the guidance should set forth a specific timeframe after receipt of the original valuation during which an ROV request must be made. This commenter noted that allowing ROV requests to be made several days or more after receipt of the original valuation can have consequences on the rate lock and can be a considerable burden on financial institutions. Another commenter believed that the guidance should state that, if an institution requests data or other information to support an ROV request, and the required information is not provided by the borrower in a reasonable timeframe, the institution should have no additional responsibilities other than conducting its own internal review to ensure there were no evident omissions, errors, or discriminatory actions involved in the valuation.

The agencies considered the range of comments aimed at adding prescriptiveness to the guidance with regard to second appraisals, the types of information submitted with an ROV request, consumer and appraiser education and training, ROV timelines, and communication with consumers. The final guidance is intended for institutions of many different sizes, types, and business models. Institutions implementing the guidance have flexibility to tailor their ROV processes based on their unique risk profile. 14 The agencies determined there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that it is important to maintain a high-level, principles-based approach to help ensure the guidance will be useful and relevant for a diverse range of institutions and circumstances. In light of their decision to retain the broad, principles-based approach of this guidance, the agencies have not made revisions to address specific topics or individual situations raised by commenters in order to provide flexible guidance for institutions designing their ROV processes.

Some commenters asserted that ROV processes should be uniform across all institutions. Other commenters believed that certain aspects of the ROV process should not be uniform due to the wide range of institutions that would be in-scope for purposes of the guidance. Another commenter recommended that the agencies build in additional flexibility to the guidance for financial institutions to exercise discretion within their own ROV processes. The agencies also received comments related to interagency coordination in developing a uniform, industry-wide ROV process.

Several commenters recommended the adoption of a standardized, expedient appeals process that would allow any party to the transaction to appeal the valuation, similar to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Tidewater Procedure. The VA's Tidewater Procedure allows VA program participants to provide relevant market data to VA fee-appraisers and staff appraisers during the appraisal process. 15 One commenter suggested that the guidance confirm that an ROV process similar to the Tidewater Procedure is acceptable. Another commenter noted that the major benefit of the Tidewater Procedure is that it establishes a process for an interested party to provide relevant data to the appraiser. A commenter noted that the Tidewater Procedure may help prevent abuse of the ROV process. The commenter raised a concern regarding who would decide the number of alternative sales to review and how it would be decided which sales transactions deserve consideration.

The agencies considered the comments on uniformity and standardization of ROV processes for all institutions and recognize that institutions may find existing standardized processes, such as the Tidewater Procedure, something to consider while developing their own ROV processes. However, a standardized approach to ROV processes ignores the differences in risk profiles of institutions of varying size and complexity. The final guidance provides a principles-based approach with flexibility for implementing institutions to adopt ROV processes that are responsive to the unique profile of each institution. Thus, the agencies do not believe it would be appropriate to prescribe a rigid, one-size-fits-all ROV process across institutions.

In the proposal, the agencies specifically requested comment on what model forms, or model policies and procedures, if any, related to ROVs would be helpful for the agencies to recommend. Several commenters encouraged the agencies to develop a standardized model form for ROV requests and provide model disclosure language for financial institutions to use when educating consumers about ROVs. One of these commenters also suggested that the agencies create a list of common documents needed for a consumer to initiate an ROV request.

One commenter suggested that the agencies work with TAF to develop model forms based on TAF's previous efforts in this area. This commenter also recommended that the agencies develop model policies addressing the denial of a consumer's ROV request and situations when consumer-provided information should be forwarded to the appraiser as part of an ROV. Another commenter requested that the agencies encourage the Federal Housing Administration, VA, and United States Department of Agriculture to develop consistent or shared materials for consumers to request ROVs and develop a model borrower application or checklist to standardize the process for consumers to request ROVs.

The agencies considered the comments recommending the development of model forms, model policies, checklists, and other standardized documents. The agencies agree that such documents may have utility and will consider future development of model forms.

Several commenters stated that the proposal would add unnecessary and burdensome requirements on top of an existing ROV process that already functions well. Certain commenters noted that implementing parts of the proposal's policies and procedures may present significant challenges for smaller institutions, especially institutions with limited resources. One commenter requested an explanation of how the guidance would specifically affect small financial institutions that perform internal valuations as an alternative to formal appraisals. A commenter also expressed concern that smaller institutions do not have sufficient financial resources to support the necessary valuation staff and that many institutions will be unable to make timely and accurate ROV request decisions due to their limited access to nationwide data or analytical tools.

Several commenters expressed concerns related to burden on credit unions specifically. One commenter pointed to the cost associated with oversight and additional processes related to ROVs, which the commenter stated would be passed on to credit union members without providing additional value to their membership. Another commenter noted that applying rigid timelines for an ROV process would be difficult for certain credit unions to implement. One commenter requested that the agencies exclude from the guidance any policies and procedures that require monitoring multiple channels for ROV requests because those would be challenging for credit unions to implement. This commenter stated that monitoring multiple channels does not align with the NCUA's previous guidance on handling consumer complaints. 16 Another commenter suggested that policies and procedures that require credit unions to ensure that their lending and valuation staff are trained to identify prohibited discriminatory practices through the appraisal review process could be similarly challenging to implement.

The agencies considered these comments regarding burden on smaller institutions, credit unions, and institutions in general. The guidance is intended to provide clarity to institutions with respect to ROV processes. The agencies reiterate that the final guidance does not have the force and effect of law or regulation and does not impose any new requirements on supervised institutions. 17 The examples of policies and procedures in the final guidance are illustrative and not requirements. The final guidance clarifies that these examples may not be applicable or material to each institution or their ROV processes. Risk-based ROV-related policies, procedures, control systems, and complaint processes may vary according to the size and complexity of the financial institution. Smaller financial institutions that choose to implement the guidance may have policies and procedures that differ from those at larger and midsize institutions. Under this guidance, institutions have flexibility in their approach to their internal ROV processes and deciding the relevance of the considerations discussed in the final guidance.

This ROV guidance does not conflict with the NCUA's previous guidance on handling consumer complaints, because financial institutions can use their existing complaint resolution process to manage complaints regarding potential valuation deficiencies. ROV processes work in congruence with the NCUA's current process for consumer complaints.

Several commenters made recommendations regarding the use of automated valuation models (AVMs) in ROV processes. 18 A commenter advised that the agencies should discourage reliance solely on automatic review tools in an ROV and should identify features that AVMs should and should not include for consideration in an ROV. A few commenters encouraged the use of AVMs in ROVs and suggested the use of automated and interactive appraisal review scoring tools that could detect, correct, and minimize human error. The agencies considered these comments and neither promote nor discourage the use of a particular method or tool as part of an ROV process.

One commenter recommended that bias complaints should not be handled by an ROV. This commenter asserted that accusations of bias should trigger an alternative complaint process, either through an escalated ROV process or a review entirely independent of the ROV process. This commenter believed ROVs should be used only for correction of informational or methodological deficiencies that do not relate to discrimination.

The final guidance does not state that ROVs are the sole tool to address bias complaints, nor does the final guidance direct institutions to use a specific tool to address bias complaints. However, in response to this comment, the agencies have made a clarifying edit to the final guidance to provide that, if an ROV request includes allegations of discrimination, an institution may consider, in addition to processing the ROV, referring the allegations through a separate process that the institution may have to respond to discrimination complaints.

Other commenters requested that the guidance address the potential liability of parties who may rely on discriminatory appraisals ( e.g., third parties, AMCs, fee-appraisers, mortgage brokers, mortgage servicers, and appraisal firms), and appraisers' or evaluators' rights to dismiss non-factual or unverified claims and be shielded from any potential backlash or liability for doing so. The assigning or absolving of civil liability of future unknown parties is outside of the scope of this guidance.

The agencies received a few comments regarding appraiser independence in the context of ROVs. A commenter asserted that the agencies should provide suggestions in the guidance for how to manage ROV requests so that they do not affect appraiser independence. Another commenter recommended that the agencies clarify and provide examples of how appraiser independence can be maintained during an ROV of an internal evaluation when an institution has only one or two individuals on staff that are qualified to perform evaluations. Another commenter believed that the guidance, as proposed, puts appraiser independence at risk.

The agencies considered the comments received on appraiser independence and reiterate that institutions are responsible for maintaining standards of independence for all real estate lending activity, including ROVs, as required by the agencies' appraisal regulations and, as applicable, USPAP. For small institutions or branches, an institution may be able to demonstrate clearly that it has prudent safeguards in place when absolute lines of independence cannot be achieved, due to, for example, limited staff. 19

Commenters also made suggestions for further actions the agencies could take, such as developing data-sharing arrangements to collect ROV data. The agencies may take such suggestions under advisement when considering future agency initiatives on this topic. A few commenters encouraged the agencies to hold roundtables and hearings to gather stakeholder input in the development of the final guidance. The agencies note that the proposed guidance was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register for the purpose of gathering stakeholder input.

Lastly, one commenter asserted that the interpretation of the adequacy of an ROV process will vary and will be defined by each exam, opening banking organizations up to unnecessary criticism. Examiners will continue to review institutions' residential real estate collateral valuation programs within the framework of established safety and soundness and consumer compliance examination procedures. This examination scope includes consideration of whether institutions' risk management practices for valuations are appropriate to identify and address valuation discrimination or bias and promote credible valuations. 20

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 21 the Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC reviewed the final guidance. The agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The agencies have determined that certain aspects of the final guidance constitute a collection of information and are revising their information collections related to real estate appraisals and evaluations. The OMB control number for each agency is: OCC, 1557-0190; Board, 7100-0250; FDIC, 3064-0103; and NCUA, 3133-0125. These information collections will be extended for three years, with revision. In addition to accounting for the PRA burden incurred as a result of this final guidance, the Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC are also updating and aligning their information collections with respect to the hourly burden associated with the Guidelines. Accordingly, the tables below provide data on both the final guidance addressed in this document and the Guidelines.

The agencies did not receive any PRA-related comments. The agencies have a continuing interest in the public's opinions of information collections. At any time, commenters may submit comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES caption in the Notice of Proposed Guidance. All comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this document to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or using the search function.

Abstract: The final guidance describes principles for financial institutions to implement ROV policies, procedures, and control systems that identify, address, and mitigate the risk of deficient valuations. Such policies and procedures create a recordkeeping requirement.

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Affected Public: Businesses, other for-profit institutions, and other not-for-profit institutions.

Respondents:

OCC: National banks, Federal savings associations.

Board: State member banks (SMBs), bank holding companies (BHCs) and nonbank subsidiaries of BHCs.

FDIC: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations, insured state branches of foreign banks.

NCUA: Private Sector: Not-for-profit institutions.

OCC:

Board:

FDIC:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Thomaston-Upson County Airport, Thomaston, GA.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2024-1235 in the Federal Register (89 FR 42399; May 15, 2024), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Thomaston-Upson County Airport, Thomaston, GA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.1-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) of Thomaston-Upson County Airport, Thomaston, GA, and within 3.7 miles on each side of the 118° bearing of the airport, extending from the 8.1-mile radius to 9.8 miles southeast of the airport. An airspace evaluation caused this action due to the decommissioning of the YATES NDB. This action also updates the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Llano Municipal Airport, Llano, TX, and Mason County Airport, Mason, TX, to support IFR operations at these airports.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-1123 in the Federal Register (89 FR 35019; May 1, 2024) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Llano, TX, and Mason, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.2-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of Llano Municipal Airport, Llano, TX; adds an extension within 2 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 12.3 miles south of the airport; modifies the north extension to within 4 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.2-mile (previously 6.5-mile) radius of the airport to 8.7 (previously 13.5) miles north of the airport; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

And modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.7-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of the Mason County Airport, Mason, TX; modifies the north extension to within 2 miles each side of the 001° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.7-mile (previously 6.4-mile) radius to 11.8 miles north of the airport; and adds an extension within 2 miles each side of the 181° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 10.8 miles south of the airport.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E surface area and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hastings Municipal Airport, Hastings, NE, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-1121 in the Federal Register (89 FR 35021; May 1, 2024) proposing to amend the Class E airspace at Hastings, NE. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:

Modifies the Class E surface area to within a 4.2-mile (decreased from a 4.7-mile) radius of the Hastings Municipal Airport, Hastings, NE; removes the Hastings VOR/DME and associated extension from the airspace legal description; removes the extension northwest of the airport as it is no longer required; and replaces the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” and “Airport/Facility Directory” with “Notice to Air Missions” and “Chart Supplement;”

And modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (decreased from a 7.2-mile) radius of Hastings Municipal Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 150° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile (previously 7.2-mile) radius to 10.5 miles (previously 10.4 miles) southeast of the airport.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it revokes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Gibson City Municipal Airport, Gibson City, IL, due to instrument procedures being cancelled and the airspace no longer being required.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-1147 in the Federal Register (89 FR 35022; May 1, 2024) proposing to revoke the Class E airspace at Gibson City, IL. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

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

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 removes the Class E surface area at Gibson City Municipal Airport, Gibson City, IL.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Division N of Public Law 118-50, the No Technology for Terror Act (the Act), which is available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text# , establishes that certain foreign-produced items are subject to the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR 730-774) (EAR) under the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852, if they are to be exported, reexported, or in-country transferred to Iran. Sponsors of H.R. 815 cited the need to restrict transfers of U.S. technology to Iran when that technology may be used for weapons systems, including drones, that threaten U.S. troops overseas or key allies. The Act is effective on July 23, 2024. Accordingly, this rule revises the Foreign-Direct Product (FDP) rule for Iran in § 734.9(j) of the EAR (Iran FDP rule).

Under the Iran FDP rule, prior to July 23, 2024, foreign-produced items were subject to the EAR when they were: (1) the direct product of U.S.-origin “software” or “technology” and specified in an EAR supplement (Supp. No. 7 to part 746) or classified under an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) in Categories 3 through 5 and 7 of the Commerce Control List, Supp. No. 1 to part 774 (CCL), or (2) were produced by a plant or major component of a plant that is itself the direct product of such CCL-controlled “software” or “technology”. Such items may have required a license from the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) to Iran. See §§ 734.9(j) and 746.7(a)(iii) of the EAR.

Effective July 23, 2024, the Act expanded the scope of the EAR's existing Iran FDP rule to require a license for additional foreign-produced items, while also providing certain exclusions from license requirements that would otherwise apply. This rule revises §§ 734.9 and 746.7 of the EAR to implement the Act's requirements in four respects.

First, BIS revises the introduction to paragraph (j) to identify the two circumstances in which foreign-produced items that meet the product scope of paragraph (j)(1) are subject to the EAR: if they fall within either the destination and end-use scope paragraphs of paragraph (j)(2) or the end-user scope set forth in new paragraph (j)(3).

Second, this rule expands the range of items in the product scope of the Iran FDP rule. Specifically, this rule revises the product scope in § 734.9(j)(1) by expanding the CCL category range of items in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) from “any ECCN in product group D or E in Categories 3 through 5 or 7” of the CCL to include Categories 3 through 9 of the CCL. The expanded product scope now includes “technology” and “software” for Category 6—Lasers and Sensors, Category 8—Marine, and Category 9—Aerospace and Propulsion.

Third, BIS has revised paragraph (j)(2) and has made structural changes, including by breaking the revised paragraph into separate paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) to assist the reader in applying the scope of this paragraph correctly. As revised, the scope of paragraph (j)(2) is satisfied if there is “knowledge” that the foreign-produced item meets the destination scope in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or meets the combined end-use and destination scope in paragraph (j)(2)(ii). The paragraph title is accordingly expanded by adding “and end-use” so that it will refer to both destination and end-use scope.

Finally, BIS has added a new end-user scope in new paragraph (j)(3). This new end-user scope applies if there is “knowledge” that the Government of Iran is a party to any transaction involving the foreign-produced item, e.g., as a “purchaser,” “intermediate consignee,” “ultimate consignee,” or “end-user.” This “knowledge” standard and reference to transaction parties is consistent with language used in the Entity List FDP rule set forth in § 734.9(e) of the EAR.

In addition to expanding the EAR's Iran FDP rule set forth in § 734.9(j), the Act made changes to the license requirements for Iran set forth in § 746.7(a)(1)(iii) of the EAR. Accordingly, this rule expands the license requirement in paragraph (a)(1)(iii), which applies to items subject to the EAR pursuant to the Iran FDP rule, to apply to in-country transfers of such items within Iran.

This rule also makes a correction to paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A) by removing an inadvertent duplicative reference to the phrase “from the countries described in supplement no. 3”.

This rule also redesignates paragraph (a)(1)(iv) as paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A) and adds a new paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B) to list exclusions from the license requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(iii). Section 2(d)(2) of the Act added certain exclusions to the Iran restrictions specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) for food, “medicine,” or “medical devices” designated as EAR99, and certain items necessary and ordinarily incident to communications that are specified in ECCN 5A992.c or 5D992.c and classified in accordance with § 740.17 of the EAR or designated as EAR99.

Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export, reexport or transfer (in-country) without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on July 26, 2024, pursuant to actual orders for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before August 26, 2024. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on August 26, 2024, require a license in accordance with this final rule.

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

1. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects and distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits and of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

This final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. Although this rule makes important changes to the EAR for items controlled for national security reasons, BIS believes that the overall increases in burdens and costs associated with the following information collections due to this rule will be minimal.

• 0694-0088, “Simplified Network Application Processing System,” which carries a burden- hour estimate of 29.6 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;

• 0694-0137 “License Exceptions and Exclusions,” which carries a burden-hour estimate average of 1.5 hours per submission (Note: submissions for License Exceptions are rarely required);

• 0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden-hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and

• 0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden-hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.

Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and using the search function to enter either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

3. Pursuant to Section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation and delay in effective date.

Accordingly, parts 734 and 746 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 to 774) are amended as follows:

In FR Doc. 2023-14538, at 88 FR 45072 in the Federal Register of Friday, July 14, 2023, in table 1 to § 42.11, the symbol for the class “Self-petition Spouse of U.S. Citizen” is changed from “IBI” to “IB1.”

Accordingly, 22 CFR part 42 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

The Department published a proposed rule with a request for comments, Public Notice 11299 at 87 FR 63739, October 20, 2022 (the NPRM), RIN 1400-AF10, to amend 22 CFR 51.28(a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i) and (ii) to allow the non-applying parent or legal guardian to sign a statement of consent before a passport specialist at one of the public passport counters located within the United States as an alternative to signing it before a notary public. This counter service will be offered free of charge. The Department intends to issue policy to authorize signing of the consent form in front of a passport specialist at a passport agency/center initially to those cases in which there is a passport application pending or other emergency circumstance, as appropriate. As Department systems and procedures evolve, it may be possible to expand use of this regulation in the future.

When applying for a U.S. passport on behalf of a minor under the age of 16, the minor's parents or legal guardians must both execute the passport application, unless the applying parent or legal guardian can demonstrate sole authority to obtain the passport. If one of the parents or legal guardians does not execute the passport application, that non-applying parent or legal guardian must submit an original notarized statement/affidavit consenting to the issuance of a passport for the minor, along with a photocopy of their identification. Currently, if the non-applying parent or legal guardian appears at a passport agency/center counter to complete the statement of consent, they must be turned away and sent to a notary public. Feedback from parents and legal guardians indicates that obtaining and mailing the notarized document can be a difficult requirement to meet and adds more time and expense to the application process.

This amendment will allow the non-applying parent or legal guardian to execute an original DS-3053 consent form in front of a passport specialist when authorized by Department policy as an alternative to signing to before a notary public, enabling them to immediately correct any deficiencies in any previously-submitted consent forms.

This change in procedure can help in emergencies and/or urgent travel situations when it is not always possible for the non-applying parent or legal guardian to deliver the original consent form to the Department. Currently, in these cases, the Department may accept a photocopy of the notarized consent form and issue a passport with limited validity to enable the minor applicant to complete their urgent or emergency travel. While limited validity passports may often be replaced with full validity passports at no further cost, the process is burdensome for both the Department and the applicant, as it requires the applicant to complete another application form and submit photographs, the limited passport, and an original notarized consent form within one year from the date that the limited passport was issued. Under the new procedures, when a parent or legal guardian signs the consent form in front of a passport specialist, the Department will have direct access to the original completed form and can issue a full validity passport immediately.

In the NPRM, the Department further proposed to amend § 51.28(a)(4)(ii) to clarify that when one parent authorizes a person to apply in loco parentis on behalf of a minor, they must demonstrate that they have sole legal authority to execute the passport application on behalf of that minor or that exigent or special family circumstances exist.

The Department also proposed to amend 22 CFR 51.28(a)(3)(ii) by removing from the list of acceptable documentary evidence of sole authority/custody a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) listing only the applying parent because a CRBA is a citizenship document and not by itself evidence of sole authority/custody. This piece of the NPRM was already finalized in a separate final rule on 06/23/2023, Public Notice 12094, 88 FR 41024. The Department is now promulgating a final rule with no substantive change from the NPRM with respect to the DS-3053 Statement of Consent.

Analysis of Comments: The Department provided 60 days for comment on the NPRM. The comment period closed December 19, 2022. The Department received two responsive comments, neither of which were opposed to this amendment. One commenter questioned why obtaining parental consent presents any difficulty to applicants at all and stated that the process is necessary to protect the minor child. This update to the regulation will provide an additional avenue for a minor applicant's parents or legal guardians to resolve consent issues, maintain the integrity of the passport issuance process, and continue to protect the welfare of minors.

Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule is too limited in scope to have any meaningful impact. The Department believes it will be greatly beneficial to the subset of applicants that utilize it. The non-applying parent or legal guardian will be easily able to resolve any issues with the original consent form by completing and signing a new form directly in front of a passport specialist. This practice will decrease the number of limited validity passports that are issued based on photocopies of notarized consent forms and will also expedite processing for these applications. The commentor additionally noted that this free alternative may have an adverse impact on the income of notaries public. The Department notes, first, that the issue of notary public income is not a reason to keep a requirement for passport applicants if it serves no useful purpose. Second, this rule will primarily benefit non-applying parents or legal guardians whose children already have pending applications, and in many of these cases, a notarized consent form was already submitted that had issues or deficiencies that need to be resolved. This rule provides a more efficient, cost-effective option for parents or legal guardians to correct issues with their previously submitted notarized consent document.

Lastly, the commenter recommended allowing acceptance agents at passport acceptance facilities to sign the form DS-3053. The Department is not open to expanding this option to acceptance facilities at this time. The burden on a non-applying parent is greatly reduced by allowing them to sign a consent form directly with a passport specialist at a public counter operated by the Department of State. Consent documents for pending passport applications will be directly transmitted to the adjudicating passport agency/center, which will improve security and efficiency in the passport issuance process. Direct document transmission would not be available through acceptance facilities not operated by the Department, and with the wide access and availability of notaries public, the Department does not believe there is added value in including acceptance facilities.

The Department received no comments regarding the information collection for the DS-3053 changes under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Department of State published this rulemaking as a proposed rule and provided 60 days for public comment.

The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This gives greater flexibility to the parents and legal guardians of minor children applying for U.S. passports. Only individuals, and no small entities, apply for passports.

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

This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act. This rule does not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.

The Department has reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 14094. The Department finds that the cost of this rulemaking to the public is expected to be minimal, and in fact provides a potential benefit to non-applying parents who may now sign a consent statement before a passport specialist free of charge (while retaining the option of signing before a notary). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule not significant under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of State has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply to this rule.

The information collection contained in this rule is pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and relates to OMB Control Number 1405-0129.

Department of State Form DS-3053, which is used to obtain the written consent from a parent or legal guardian of a minor passport applicant when that parent cannot be present at the time the application is executed, will be revised to be consistent with this rulemaking, to allow the non-applying parent or legal guardian to sign a statement of consent before a notary public or a passport specialist at one of the public passport agency/center counters located within the United States as an alternative to requiring a notarized statement, when an application is pending at a passport agency/center.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 51 is amended as follows:

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

The Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, Public Law 118-50, Division F (the “REPO for Ukrainians Act” or the “Act”), was enacted on April 24, 2024. Section 104(a)(1) of the Act provides that “the President shall, by means of such instructions or regulations as the President may prescribe, require any financial institution at which Russian sovereign assets are located, and that knows or should know of such assets, to provide notice of such assets, including relevant information required under section 501.603(b)(ii) [sic] of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), to the Secretary of the Treasury not later than 10 days after detection of such assets.”

On July 22, 2024, the President delegated the functions and authorities in section 104(a)(1) of the Act to the Secretary of the Treasury. On July 23, 2024, OFAC issued Reporting Instructions under the Act.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the collections of information related to the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 CFR part 501 (the “Regulations”), have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1505-0164 Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulation. These reporting instructions, issued pursuant to the REPO for Ukrainians Act, and the form used to collect that information, are substantially similar to the collections of information issued pursuant to the Regulations. Specifically, these reporting instructions require financial institutions to report on Russian sovereign assets that they hold that have not already been reported pursuant to § 501.603 of the Regulations or Directive 4 under Executive Order 14024, both of which are included within the existing collections of information related to the Regulations that have been previously approved by OMB.

These instructions, and the form available to report such information, have been submitted to OMB for review and approval under OMB control number 1505-0164 Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulation. The likely respondents and record-keepers affected by these reporting instructions are financial institutions. OFAC has reviewed its existing data on reports of blocked or immobilized property, as well as data on the number of financial institutions likely to be holding Russian sovereign assets, to estimate the reporting burden, as set forth below.

Title: Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations.

OMB Control Number: 1505-0164.

Form Name: REPO For Ukrainians Act Report Form.

Form Number: TD-F 93.09.

Type of Review: Revision.

Affected Public: Private Sector—Financial Institutions.

Estimated Number of Financial Institution Respondents: 300.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 300.

Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 150 hours.

The text of the reporting instructions is provided below.

Pursuant to section 104(a) of the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, Public Law 118-50, Division F (the “REPO for Ukrainians Act,” or the “Act”), all financial institutions at which Russian sovereign assets are located, and that know or should know of such assets, are required to provide notice of such assets to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) no later than August 2, 2024 or within 10 days of the detection of such assets. Financial institutions that maintain correspondent or payable-through accounts on behalf of foreign financial institutions should exercise reasonable due diligence to report any Russian sovereign assets held in such accounts.

Financial institutions may rely on reports regarding Russian sovereign assets located at the financial institution that are filed pursuant to Directive 4 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 or in reports of blocked property filed pursuant to 31 CFR 501.603(b) to fulfill their obligations under section 104(a) of the Act with respect to those assets and should not re-report to OFAC any such assets under this instruction. Reports provided under this instruction shall identify Russian sovereign assets not otherwise reported to OFAC pursuant to Directive 4 under E.O. 14024 or in reports of blocked property filed pursuant to 31 CFR 501.603(b).

(a) Reports. Reports of Russian sovereign assets shall include the following:

(1) The name and address of the person in possession or control of the property;

(2) The date the property came into the possession or control of such person;

(3) The person that owns the account or property;

(4) A description of the property and its location in the United States or otherwise, including any relevant account types, account numbers, reference numbers, dates, or other information necessary to identify the property;

(5) The actual, or if unknown, estimated value of the property in U.S. dollars. Foreign currencies must be reported in U.S. dollars with the foreign currency amount and notional exchange rate in the narrative; and

(6) A copy of the most recent relevant account statement or other documentation to support the estimated value of the property.

Reports under this instruction should be submitted using the REPO for Ukrainians Act Report Form, which is available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov/ ). Financial institutions with responsive information should email completed forms to ofacreport@treasury.gov with the subject line, “[Name of Financial Institution] REPO for Ukrainians Act Report.”

(b) Definitions. Pursuant to section 2 of the Act and for purposes of these instructions:

(1) The term “financial institution” means a financial institution specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (M), or (Z) of section 5312(a)(2) of title 31 United States Code.

(2) The term “Russian sovereign asset” means any of the following, regardless of whether such asset is blocked or effectively immobilized by the Department of the Treasury: (A) Funds and other property of (i) the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, (ii) the Russian National Wealth Fund, or (iii) the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation; or (B) any other funds or other property that are owned by the Government of the Russian Federation, including by any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of that government.

On April 18, 2024, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting an annual high speed boat race every third weekend in July in the navigable waters of San Jacinto River, Houston, TX. The Captain of the Port Houston-Galveston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the power boat race will be a safety concern for anyone within the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone, and Shut-Down Zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. In response, on June 3, 2024, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Special Local regulation; San Jacinto River, Houston, TX (89 FR 55131). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this boat race. During the comment period that ended July 18, 2024, we received 4 comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule is impracticable because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the power boat race being held on July 20 and July 21, 2024.

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

As noted above, we received four comments on our NPRM published July 3, 2024. One concern was related to environmental impact. However, during the environmental review it was determined that this event had minimal to no impact to the environment. The remaining comments raised concerns that are unrelated to the regulation and outside the scope of Coast Guard authority. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The COTP is establishing a special local regulation that will be enforced annually the third Saturday and Sunday of July. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period with respect to the event, the geographical area, and additional details, as needed, concerning the event will be published in local notices to mariners. The special local regulation will encompass five different zones to include the Pre-Stage Zone, Approach Zone, Course Run Zone, Shut-Down Zone, and the Spectator Zone as described below:

Pre-Stage Zone: This is the pre-staging area for participating vessels to line up. It will include all waters within 150 ft of 29°53′29.0148″ N, 095°06′39.4416″ W.

Approach Zone: 200 ft distance required for participating vessels to obtain the minimum 40 mph requirement for course entry. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°53′27.3″ N, 95°06′42.6″ W and end at approximately 29°53′27.6″ N, 95°06′40.0″ W.

Course Run Zone: 600 ft distance where participating vessels will conduct their high-speed run. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°53′27.6″ N, 95°06′40.0″ W and end at approximately 29°53′30.0″ N, 95°06′34.7″ W.

Shut-Down Zone: 900 ft distance where participating vessels will be allowed to slow their speeds back to an idle. This will be a straight line to begin at approximately 29°53′30.0″ N, 95°06′34.7″ W and end at approximately 29°53′34.3″ N, 95°06′24.1″ W.

Spectator Zone: All vessels that will be viewing the event will be required to stay within a designated area. The sponsor is responsible for monitoring the spectator zone and ensuring that all vessels within the area are anchored and remain in the area during all ongoing high-speed runs. The following coordinates are the approximate location of the Spectator Zone: 29°53′29.4″ N, 95°06′39.8″ W, thence to 29°53′28.5″ N, 95°06′39.6″ W, thence to 29°53′29.7″ N, 95°06′36.9″ W, thence to 29°53′30.4″ N, 95°06′37.2″ W.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the established zones without obtaining permission from the COTP, designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or designated representative.

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

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the 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 this special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small, designated area of the San Jacinto River, for a short duration, when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners about the zone via VHF-FM marine channel 16, 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

This rule would 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 would 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian Tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a marine event and special local regulation lasting only 9 hours that would prohibit entry within 150 feet of the boat course. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in MD Docket No. 24-85 and MD Docket No. 24-86, FCC 24-70, adopted and released on June 13, 2024 ( Report and Order ). The full text of this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-changes-certain-space-station-regulatory-fees-fy-2024.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The Commission has prepared an Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of the proposed rule and policy changes contained in the Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth in the appendix of the FCC Document https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-changes-certain-space-station-regulatory-fees-fy-2024 and a summary is included in the Procedural Matters section below.

Pursuant to section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Communications Act or Act), the Commission adopts a methodology change for one category of fee payors and include a type of space station in an existing category on an interim basis. These changes will be effective for the fiscal year 2024 (FY 2024) assessment and collection of regulatory fees. Specifically, the Commission adopts a new methodology for assessing regulatory fees for small satellites and spacecraft licensed under §§ 25.122 and 25.123 of the Commission's rules, and include space stations that are principally used for Rendezvous & Proximity Operations (RPO) or On-Orbit Servicing (OOS), including Orbit Transfer Vehicles (OTV), in the existing fee category for “small satellites” on an interim basis until the Commission can develop more experience in how these space stations will be regulated. The Commission finds that these changes better serve the requirements and purpose of section 9 of the Act, and there is unopposed support in the record for adoption of these two proposals in time for the changes to be effective for FY 2024.

The Commission defers action on other proposals made in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (89 FR 20582, March 25, 2024) that the Commission adopted in March 2024 ( Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM ). The Commission is continuing to consider the other proposals in light of the record received on those issues and will decide which, if any, may benefit from further development of the record. It anticipates acting on the remaining proposals in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM in the near term.

Section 9 of the Act obligates the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees each year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual salaries and expenses (S&E) appropriation. Thus, the Commission has no discretion regarding the total amount to be collected in any given fiscal year. In accordance with the statute, each year the Commission proposes adjustments to the prior fee schedule under section 9(c) to “(A) reflect unexpected increases or decreases in the number of units subject to the payment of such fees; and (B) result in the collection of the amount required” by the Commission's annual appropriation. The Commission will also propose amendments to the fee schedule under section 9(d) “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment so that such fees reflect the full-time equivalent number of employees within the bureaus and offices of the Commission, adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities.” In administering its regulatory fee program, the agency strives to adhere to the goals of ensuring that the program is fair, administrable, and sustainable.

The Commission released the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on March 13, 2024, which initiated an examination and review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors that are regulated by the new Space Bureau. When the Commission adopted regulatory fees for FY 2023, it noted that it would be the last year for doing so using the nomenclature of certain fee payors being regulated by the International Bureau. The Commission noted that the creation of the Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs could result in changes in the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth station fee payors resulting from changes in Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), due to increased oversight on various relevant industries. The Commission anticipated that the changes in the industry that resulted in the creation of the Space Bureau would likely also result in changes in the relative FTE burdens between and among space and earth station fee payors. Accordingly, the Commission sought comment in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM on a range of proposed changes related to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations under the Commission's existing regulatory fee methodology, as well as under a proposed alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees.

The Commission received 16 comments and 17 reply comments in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM . In addition, several entities made presentations to the Commission pursuant to its rules governing ex parte communications.

In addition, on June 13, 2024, the Commission released the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MD Docket No. 24-86 (89 FR 53276, June 25, 2024), seeking comment on the Commission's proposed methodology and regulatory fees for FY 2024 ( FY 2024 Regulatory Fees NPRM ). The FY 2024 Regulatory Fees NPRM does not seek comment again on the methodology for assessing space and earth station regulatory fees; rather, it seeks comment on the proposed regulatory fee rates for space and earth station payors for FY 2024 that were based on the existing methodology used in FY 2023 and also the proposals set forth in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM . The proposed regulatory fee rates are set forth in appendices A, B, and E of the FY 2024 Regulatory Fees NPRM .

The Commission adopts two proposals made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM: amending the methodology for assessing fees for small satellites, and including space stations that are principally used for RPO or OOS, as well as OTVs, in the existing fee category for “small satellites” on an interim basis. Commenters express strong support in the record for adoption of these two proposals, and no comments oppose adoption of these proposals. Accordingly, the Commission adopts these proposals to be effective for FY 2024.

The Commission adopts the proposal in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM to set the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)” for FY 2024 at the level set for FY 2023 ($12,215), with annual adjustments thereafter to reflect the percentage change in the FCC appropriation, unit count, and FTE allocation percentage from the previous fiscal year. Comments received in response to the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM support adoption of this proposal, and no party opposes it.

As observed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, the small satellite fee rate is currently calculated by taking the average of the calculated fee rate for space stations in the Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other (“NGSO-Other”) and Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Less Complex (“NGSO-Less Complex”) categories, multiplying this average by 5% (1/20) and rounding it to the nearest $5. The small satellite fee rate is then multiplied by the number of small satellite units and deducted from the share of space station regulatory fees allocated to non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) space stations. This remaining amount is then divided between NGSO-Other and NGSO-Less Complex based on an 80/20 split and reduced from the target goals of NGSO-Other and NGSO-Less Complex respectively. Because the small satellite fee is based on the fees assessed for NGSO-Other and NGSO-Less Complex categories, the increased fees expected for these two categories could lead to greatly increased fees for the small satellite regulatory fee category beginning in FY 2024 if the current method for assessing regulatory fees for small satellites is unchanged.

As the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM noted, the FTE burden arising from licensing and regulating small satellite matters has not increased since FY 2023. The additional FTE resources allocated to the Space Bureau are not intensively involved in the licensing and regulatory oversight of small satellites. As a result, the overall percentage of FTE burden for small satellites is less than the 1/20th burden of NGSO space stations previously estimated. For this reason, the Commission will continue to use the FY 2023 regulatory fee for FY 2024. It finds that the regulatory fee for small satellites established for FY 2023 appropriately estimates the benefits received by such fee payors from the FTEs spent on licensing and regulating small satellites, without analyzing the FTE benefits as a proportion of another category of space station. In addition, the proposals made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM to create subcategories within the NGSO-Other category for “small” and “large” constellations would add to the complexity of calculating the appropriate share of FTE resources allocated to small satellites, if those proposals were to be adopted. This added complexity does not correspond to any additional benefit to the calculation of FTE resources allocated to small satellites. Furthermore, separation of the methodology for assessing regulatory fees for small satellites from the regulatory fees for NGSO space stations permits freer consideration of the appropriate regulatory fee categories for NGSO space stations without necessitating consideration of potential unintended consequences for small satellite fee payors.

For FY 2024, the Commission does not make any other changes to how small satellite regulatory fees are incorporated into the existing methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees. That is, it will continue to multiply the per unit regulatory fee for small satellites by the number of small satellite units for the fiscal year and deduct this amount from the NGSO share of space station regulatory fees, divided between NGSO-Other and NGSO-Less Complex based on an 80/20 split and reduced from the target goals of NGSO-Other and NGSO-Less Complex respectively. The Commission will implement the changes to the methodology for assessing fees for small satellites made in the Report and Order as part of the order adopting FCC-wide regulatory fees for FY 2024.

The Commission adopts the proposal made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM to assess regulatory fees on spacecraft primarily performing RPO and OOS by including them in the existing regulatory fee category “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (Small Satellites),” on an interim basis, regardless of the orbit in which they are designed to operate. RPO and OOS missions can include satellite refueling, inspecting and repairing in-orbit spacecraft, capturing and removing debris, and transforming materials through manufacturing while in space. The Commission also concludes that it is appropriate to assess regulatory fees on OTVs in the same manner. The record in this proceeding supports adoption of these proposals, effective for FY 2024, and no party opposes adoption.

The Commission has previously adopted the following regulatory fee categories for space stations: Space Stations (Geostationary Orbit); Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Less Complex; Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other; and Space Station (Small Satellites). Currently, due to the nascent nature of OOS and RPO industry, or more generally “in-space servicing” industries, the Commission has not adopted a distinct regulatory fee category for such operations, despite that fact that spacecraft have begun to operate under part 25 of the Commission's rules for radiocommunications while conducting these types of operations. Previously, the Commission determined that the record was insufficiently complete to adopt a separate regulatory fee category for spacecraft performing OOS and RPO. In the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, the Commission explained that it is not appropriate to assess regulatory fees on RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations under existing regulatory fee categories for Space Stations (Geostationary orbit) or Space Stations (Non-Geostationary Orbit)—Other or Less Complex because the regulatory burden of RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations is currently far less than that of other geostationary orbit (GSO) and NGSO space stations in those existing fee categories. As the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM stated, the Commission believes that further delay in addressing the appropriate regulatory fee is no longer appropriate even where, as here, the Commission has not adopted a separate regulatory category for this type of operation. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that the regulatory burden of RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations is more similar to that presented by small satellite space station licensees. For instance, these type of licensees are few in number and involve a relatively small number of space stations that have limited duration and scope of use, and operate using shared spectrum resources, which require far fewer FTE resources to license and regulate. The Commission adopts its tentative conclusion that the existing small satellite regulatory fee category is the most appropriate category to apply until such time as the Commission determines that separate fee categories for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations are appropriate. Moreover, the Commission agrees with comments that it will be in a better position to adopt separate new fee categories, if appropriate, for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations after it gains more experience with their licensing and regulation.

Solely for the purpose of assessing regulatory fees, the Commission will include space stations primarily performing RPO and OOS, as well as OTVs, within the existing Space Stations (Small Satellite) regulatory fee category, on an interim basis, rather than creating a new regulatory fee category for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations. The International Bureau and Space Bureau have considered applications for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations and issued licenses for such space stations under the existing regulatory framework of part 25 of the Commission's rules, and such stations are already operational and subject to payment of regulatory fees. Given this immediate need to assess regulatory fees on RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations now and in the near future, the Commission concludes that the purposes of section 9 of the Act would be best met by assessing regulatory fees on an interim basis under the existing category of fees associated with the least-burdensome set of space station regulatees. The Commission believes this approach is preferable to waiting for additional experience and, in the interim, potentially subjecting existing RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations subject to regulatory fees that do not reflect the amount of regulatory work required by these nascent services. As the Commission gains more experience with the regulation of RPO, OOS, OTV space stations, it will be in a better position to decide if it should adopt a new, separate fee category for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations or make any further modifications.

The Commission also adopts the proposal to assess RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations using the small satellite fee category regardless of the orbit utilized. The Commission affirms the tentative conclusion in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, and agrees with comments, that the rationale for using the small satellite regulatory fee category to assess fees on RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations applies regardless of whether the RPO, OOS, or OTV space stations operate in geostationary or non-geostationary orbit. The Commission also adopts the proposal to assess the regulatory fee for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations on a “per license/call sign” basis as is the case for small satellites payors, rather than on the “per system” basis used for Space Stations (Non-geostationary Orbit). Although no party commented on this proposal, the Commission concludes that the reasons that supported assessing regulatory fees on small satellites on a “per license/call sign” basis support treating RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations in the same manner. The Commission will implement the changes to the methodology for assessing fees for RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations adopted in the Report and Order as part of the order adopting FCC-wide regulatory fees for FY 2024.

The Commission declines, at this time, to assess regulatory fees on all “ISAM space stations” using the small satellite fee category, as proposed in some comments in this proceeding. In 2022, the Commission initiated a Notice of Inquiry (87 FR 56365, September 14, 2022) regarding the regulatory needs related to in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing—or “ISAM”—that could include such services as RPO and OOS. The Commission has since adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (89 FR 18875, March 15, 2024) seeking comment on a framework for licensing ISAM space stations. That rulemaking proceeding, which is considering the regulatory framework for such services, remains pending. The Commission finds that it is premature to make a decision regarding the assessment of regulatory fees on ISAM space stations for which the definition and regulatory framework are still being considered and for which there are no applications pending or licenses issued. The Commission expects to revisit this issue in the future, after conclusion of the ISAM rulemaking, when the framework and expected FTE burdens for licensing and regulating ISAM space stations are better known. In addition, although one commenter suggests that the Commission more clearly define RPO, OOS, and OTV by their characteristics in order to remove uncertainty by applicants with regards to their expected regulatory fees, it declines to do so at this time, because the proposed characteristics for defining RPO, OOS, and OTV, such as limited duration of operations, ability to share spectrum, and low number of stations, have not been defined in the Commission's rules and are outside the scope of a regulatory fee proceeding. The Commission also declines at this time to include missions involving `habitable' or `crewed' space stations in the existing fee category for small satellites, as proposed by one commenter, finding it is premature to make a decision regarding the assessment of regulatory fees for potential future types of space stations for which the FTE benefits are not reasonably known and for which there are no applications pending or licenses issued.

Finally, the Commission declines to address at this time the proposal in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM that RPO or OOS space stations that are attached to another space station as part of servicing or mission extension operations be assessed regulatory fees separate from, and in addition to, any regulatory fees assessed on the space station that is being serviced or that is having its mission extended. The Commission had previously tentatively concluded that RPO and OOS space stations joined to GSO space stations during servicing or mission extension operations should not be assessed separate regulatory fees, despite the RPO or OOS space stations being assigned their own call signs, which is the unit usually used to assess regulatory fees for space stations. Although this tentative conclusion was never adopted, currently RPO or OOS space stations attached to another space station have not been assessed separate regulatory fees. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM sought comment on this prior tentative conclusion and suggested that the requirements and purpose of section 9 of the Act would be better met by assessing regulatory fees on such attached RPO or OOS space stations.

The Commission finds that consideration of this proposal would benefit from consideration of and action on the proposal in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM to assess regulatory fees on all authorized space stations, not just on operational space stations as is currently the case because the rationale for assessing fees on authorized stations would support the rationale for assessing regulatory fees on RPO and OOS space stations regardless whether they are attached to a serviced space station. Action on this issue may benefit from the Commission's consideration of the proposal regarding assessing regulatory fees on authorized, not just operational, space stations. Thus, it plans to consider those matters at the same time in a future Commission item acting on the proposals made in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM .

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM . The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

The Commission is required by Congress pursuant to section 9 of the Act to assess and collect regulatory fees each year to recover the regulatory costs associated with the Commission's oversight and regulatory activities in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount of its annual appropriation. As part of last year's adoption of regulatory fees, the Commission noted that FY 2023 would be the last year where the Commission will do so for the International Bureau, given the creation of the Space Bureau, and Office of International Affairs. The Commission also noted that an examination of the regulatory fees, and categories for NGSO space stations would be useful in light of changes resulting from the creation of the Space Bureau, and as part of a more holistic review of the FTE burden of the Space Bureau in fiscal year 2024 (FY 2024). The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM commenced the examination and review of regulatory fees for space and earth station payors regulated by the new Space Bureau, specifically seeking comment on a range of proposed changes to the assessment of regulatory fees for space and earth stations under the existing methodology. The Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM also proposed an alternative methodology for assessing space station regulatory fees that would eliminate the distinction between GSO, NGSO, and all the subcategories of NGSO, while preserving a separate fee category for small satellites.

In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts two changes to the assessment and collection of its annual regulatory fees for space station payors for FY 2024. The adopted changes implement a new methodology for assessing fees for small satellites and spacecraft licensed under §§ 25.122 and 25.123 of the Commission's rules that sets the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)” for FY 2024 and future fiscal years at the level set for FY 2023, annually adjusted to reflect the percentage change in the appropriation from the previous fiscal year. The Commission also implements a change that includes, on an interim basis, space stations that are principally used for RPO or OOS, including OTVs, in the existing fee category for “small satellites” until the Commission can develop more experience in how these space stations will be regulated. The Commission defers actions on other proposals contained in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM to allow for further development of the record and expects to address these matters to be effective for FY 2025.

There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies in the IRFA.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules or policies in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.

The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities provide DBS service—DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small business. Therefore, the Commission must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.

Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there was a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.

Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems. A VSAT is a relatively small satellite antenna used for satellite-based point-to-multipoint data communications applications. VSAT networks provide support for credit verification, transaction authorization, and billing and inventory management. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were a total of 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently using the SBA's small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.

Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Satellite Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 275 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Thus, for this industry under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Mobile Satellite Earth Station licensees are small entities. Additionally, based on Commission data as of February 1, 2024, there were 16 Mobile Satellite Earth Stations licensees. The Commission does not request nor collect annual revenue information, and is therefore unable to estimate the number of mobile satellite earth stations that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers' industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.

All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

The Report and Order does not change the Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for small entities. Small and other regulated entities are required to pay regulatory fees on an annual basis. The cost of compliance with the annual regulatory assessment for small entities is the amount assessed for their regulatory fee category and should not require small entities to hire professionals to comply.

Small entities that qualify can take advantage of the exemption from payment of regulatory fees allowed under the de minimis threshold. As discussed in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM, small entities may also request a waiver, reduction, deferral, and/or installment payment of their regulatory fees. The waiver process provides smaller entities that may not be familiar with the Commission's procedural filing rules an easier filing process.

The RFA requires an agency to provide “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts the proposal in the Space and Earth Station Regulatory Fees NPRM to set the regulatory fee for “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary order) (47 CFR part 25) (Small Satellite)” for FY 2024 at the level set for FY 2023 ($12,215), with annual adjustments thereafter to reflect the percentage change in the FCC appropriation, unit count, and FTE allocation percentage from the previous year. The Report and Order finds that the administrability and sustainability of regulatory fees for small satellites would be better served by treating them as the Commission has historically treated the regulatory fees for earth stations—that is, a fixed regulatory fee that is adjusted from year-to-year on, rather than as a percentage of the Space Bureau's overall share of regulatory fee allocation, or as a percentage of other categories of space station fee payors. This change would significantly minimize the economic impact of regulatory fees potentially faced by small satellites. Without this change, the fee amount for the small satellite category for FY 2024 could be substantially greater than the fee assessed for FY 2023. Further, the record contains no objections to this approach.

The Report and Order also adopts the proposal, to assess regulatory fees on spacecraft primarily performing RPO and OOS, including OTV, by including them, on an interim basis, in the existing regulatory fee category “Space Stations (per license/call sign in non-geostationary orbit) (Small Satellites)” regardless of the orbit in which they are designed to operate in. The record in this proceeding not only supports this proposal, but no commenting party opposed it. The Space Bureau has received relatively few applications for RPO, OOS, or OTV space stations, and although it anticipates receiving more in the near future, the amount of FTE resources required at the present time to regulate these services is more similar to that presented by small satellite space station licensees, which are also few in number, and involve a relatively small number of space stations that have limited duration and scope of use and operate using shared spectrum resources. The Commission considered the alternative of adopting a separate regulatory fee category for spacecraft performing OOS and RPO, however, the record is insufficiently complete to justify supporting such a proposal. Additionally, the Commission considered assessing regulatory fees on RPO, OOS, and OTV space stations under other existing regulatory fee categories, however space stations in those categories are subject to a much greater regulatory burden. Therefore, the Report and Order finds that the purposes of section 9 of the Act would be best met by erring on the side of caution and assessing regulatory fees under the category of fees associated with the least-burdensome set of space station regulations which would result in lower regulatory fees, and have less economic impact on small entities in that sector.

The Commission considered but declined to assess regulatory fees on all “ISAM space stations” using the small satellite fee category, as proposed in some comments in this proceeding. In light of the current proceeding involving ISAM, the Commission finds it is premature to make a decision regarding the assessment of regulatory fees on ISAM space stations for which the definition and regulatory framework are still being considered and for which there are no applications pending or licenses issued. The Commission expects to revisit this issue in the future, after conclusion of the ISAM rulemaking, when the framework and expected FTE burdens for licensing and regulating ISAM space stations are better known. The Commission also considered the suggestion of one commenter that it more clearly define RPO, OOS, and OTV by their characteristics in order to remove uncertainty by applicants with regards to their expected regulatory fees. The Commission declined to do so at this time, because the proposed characteristics for defining RPO, OOS, and OTV, such as limited duration of operations, ability to share spectrum, and low number of stations, have not been defined in the Commission's rules and are outside the scope of a regulatory fee proceeding. The Commission also considered but declined at this time, to include missions involving `habitable' or `crewed' space stations in the existing fee category for small satellites, as proposed by one commenter, finding it is premature to make a decision regarding the assessment of regulatory fees for potential future types of space stations for which the FTE benefits are not reasonably known and for which there are no applications pending or licenses issued.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Atlantic includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia on the east coast of Florida, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and NMFS. The FMP 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 for Spanish mackerel in the Atlantic EEZ apply as either round or gutted weight.

The commercial annual catch limit (equal to the commercial quota) for the Atlantic migratory group of Spanish mackerel (Atlantic Spanish mackerel) is 3.33 million pounds (lb) or 1.51 million kilograms (kg) [50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)]. Atlantic Spanish mackerel are divided into northern and southern zones for management purposes. The commercial quota for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is 662,670 lb (300,582 kg) for the current fishing year, which is March 1, 2024, through February 28, 2025 [50 CFR 622.384(c)(2)(i)].

The northern zone for Spanish mackerel extends in the Atlantic EEZ from New York through North Carolina. The northern boundary of the northern zone extends from an intersection point off New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island at 41°18′16.249″ N latitude and 71°54′28.477″ W longitude, and proceeds southeast to 37°22′32.75″ N latitude and the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ. The southern boundary of the northern zone extends from the North Carolina and South Carolina state border along a line in a direction of 135°34′55″ from true north beginning at 33°51′07.9″ N latitude and 78°32′32.6″ W longitude to the intersection point with the outward boundary of the EEZ [50 CFR 622.369(b)(2)]. See figure 2 of appendix G to part 622—Spanish Mackerel for an illustration of the management zones.

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(d)(1)(i) require NMFS to close the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone when landings reach or are projected to reach the commercial quota for that zone. NMFS projects that the commercial quota of 662,670 lb (300,582 kg) for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone has been reached for the 2024-2025 fishing year. Accordingly, the commercial sector for Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone is closed effective on July 28, 2024, through February 28, 2025, the end of the current fishing year.

During the commercial closure, a person on a vessel that has been issued a valid Federal commercial permit to harvest Atlantic Spanish mackerel may continue to retain this species in the northern zone under the recreational bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(iii) and (2)(i), if recreational harvest of Atlantic Spanish mackerel in the northern zone has not been closed [50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)].

Also during the commercial closure, Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone, including those fish harvested under the recreational bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to Atlantic Spanish mackerel from the northern zone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor [50 CFR 622.384(e)(2)].

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.388(d)(1)(i), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial quota and AM has already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are also contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement the closure to protect the Atlantic Spanish mackerel resource, because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in additional harvest that exceeds the established commercial quota.

For the same reasons, there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).