The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0291. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2018-0291); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

In FR Doc. 2024-15288, published at 89 FR 58039 on July 17, 2024, the NRC makes the following corrections:

1. On page 58041, in the third column, the sentence “Licensees seeking to use a later edition in the middle of an IST or ISI interval must still submit an exemption request for NRC review and approval.” is corrected to read “The NRC will continue to review mid-ISI interval requests in accordance with the existing process described in 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv) and Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, “Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI,” dated July 28, 2004.”

2. On page 58052, in the first column, under “Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50,” remove the last sentence.

This final rule implements amendments 126/114 to the FMPs. NMFS published a Notice of Availability for amendments 126/114 in the Federal Register on January 22, 2024 (89 FR 3902), with public comments invited through March 22, 2024. NMFS published a proposed rule to implement amendments 126/114 in the Federal Register on February 5, 2024 (89 FR 7660), with public comments invited through April 5, 2024. The Secretary of Commerce approved amendments 126/114 on April 15, 2024, after considering information from the public and determining that amendments 126/114 are consistent with the BSAI and GOA FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

Per section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS conducted public hearings to accept oral and written comments on the proposed rule in-person for Alaska and virtually for Oregon and Washington. The first public hearing was held on February 28, 2024, in Kodiak, Alaska. The second virtual public hearing took place on March 12, 2024.

NMFS received 17 comment letters on the proposed rule. NMFS considered 25 unique relevant written and oral comments received by the end of the applicable comment period and at a public hearing, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendments or the proposed rule. NMFS considered the 25 unique comments in reaching the approval decision for amendments 126/114. A summary of the comments and NMFS' responses are provided under the heading Comments and Responses section below. NMFS received one comment that was outside the scope of this action.

The Observer Program, part of the Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, implements a suite of requirements for observation and reporting of fishing activities that plays an integral role in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program was created with the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the mid-1970s and has evolved from primarily observing foreign fleets to observing domestic fleets. The Observer Program provides the regulatory framework for NMFS-certified observers (observers) and EM systems to be deployed on board vessels to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish and halibut fisheries.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS developed this final action based on input received from the Council's Trawl EM Committee, 3 years of data gathered through the exempted fishing permit (EFP) process, and public input through the Council process and the hearings and comment periods associated with this final rule. The rule provides an option for participants in the partial and full coverage observer categories using pelagic trawl gear to directed fish for pollock, as well as tender vessels delivering pollock to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors, to choose to be in a new category: the trawl EM category.

This final rule makes EM an option for catcher vessels directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear in the BS, AI, or GOA fisheries (hereinafter “catcher vessels”) and associated tender vessels delivering pollock to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors in the BS, AI, and GOA. The preamble to the proposed rule to implement amendments 126/114 (89 FR 7660, February 5, 2024) contains a detailed description of the background for this action, which is not repeated here.

Under this final rule, EM systems installed aboard the catcher vessels and tenders will collect at-sea data that NMFS will use to monitor vessels' compliance with Federal regulations and catch handling requirements. The implementation of EM has the potential to reduce economic and operational costs associated with deploying observers on catcher vessels. EM will improve salmon accounting for all associated species, reduce monitoring costs, and improve the quality of monitoring data.

In consultation with the Council, NMFS has flexibility to provide observer coverage to respond to the scientific and management needs of the fisheries. By integrating EM on catcher vessels directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear, the Council and NMFS seek to preserve and increase this flexibility by implementing adaptable monitoring plans. With this final rule, NMFS, in consultation with the Council, is able to deploy EM tools tailored to the needs of different fishery sectors, just as it does with observers, through the Annual Deployment Plan (ADP).

This final rule establishes the process to allow owners or operators of catcher vessels and tender vessels in the pelagic pollock fisheries to choose to be in the trawl EM category and, therein, to use an EM system in place of an observer in most cases. Participation in the trawl EM category is voluntary, and a vessel owner or operator could choose on an annual basis to request a vessel's placement in the trawl EM category.

This final rule also establishes the requirements for use of an EM system to monitor whether discards at sea occur. Furthermore, review of EM video footage will be used to verify vessel discard estimates submitted by those catcher vessels using pelagic trawl gear and tender vessels that choose to be in the trawl EM category. For vessels in the trawl EM category, the data collection previously conducted by at-sea observers will be completed by observers stationed at the processor receiving the catch.

In the event NMFS identifies additional data that cannot be collected at the processor when this program is implemented, NMFS retains the authority to deploy at-sea observers on catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Additionally, some level of in-person at-sea data collection in the pollock fisheries will continue to be necessary to collect certain spatial and biological data. NMFS will make these observer coverage decisions through the ADP process.

In addition to observers stationed at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors, Catch Monitoring Control Plans (CMCPs) and Vessel Monitoring Plans (VMPs) will be used to determine and achieve the sampling objectives NMFS outlines in the ADP. The onboard EM systems will ensure that vessels meet compliance monitoring objectives while also establishing a chain of custody for prohibited species catch (PSC). Observers at shoreside processors or stationary floating processors will then collect species composition, PSC, and biological samples as determined by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division. The flexibility offered by the ADP allows NMFS to achieve transparency, accountability, and efficiency from the Observer Program to meet its various objectives. The ADP process ensures that the best available information is used to evaluate deployment, including scientific review and Council input, to annually determine deployment methods.

For all fishing trips in the trawl EM category, all vessels will be required to improve retention ( i.e., minimize discards to the greatest extent practicable) and record all catch handling. All EM data will be submitted as required to NMFS for review to ensure the trawl EM category elements are followed. Failure to meet the program objectives, as outlined in the ADP and VMP, may result in disapproval of further participation in the trawl EM category and enforcement action.

This final rule implements requirements applicable to the following: (1) catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (2) tender vessels, shoreside processors, and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from catcher vessels in the trawl EM category; (3) observer providers; and (4) EM service providers for vessels in the trawl EM category.

Under this final rule, a catcher vessel remains subject to observer coverage, described at § 679.51(a)(1) or § 679.51(a)(2), unless NMFS approves a request for placement of the catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. This final rule establishes monitoring requirements for tender vessels that receive deliveries from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors are subject to observer coverage requirements at § 679.51(b)(1) or § 679.51(b)(2). This final rule establishes additional observer sampling station and monitoring requirements at § 679.28(g)(7) through (10) for shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. These observer sampling station and monitoring requirements previously existed for shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving American Fisheries Act (AFA) deliveries. Under this final rule, those requirements are expanded to any plant receiving trawl EM deliveries to support shoreside observers and include additional requirements, such as updating spatial requirements to allow for new data collections. Additionally, under this final rule, entities intending to provide EM hardware to vessels in the trawl EM category are required to obtain an EM hardware service provider permit as specified at § 679.52(d) and (e).

Under this final rule, eligible vessel owners or operators of catcher and tender vessels may voluntarily request to participate in the trawl EM category annually through the Observer Declare and Deploy System (ODDS) by November 1 and, if approved, will be subject to coverage requirements as specified by NMFS. Specifically, any owner or operator of a catcher vessel with a pollock pelagic trawl endorsement on their Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) or a tender vessel receiving deliveries from these catcher vessels may request to be in the trawl EM category.

This final rule establishes responsibilities for the owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category to install and maintain an EM system. Vessels in the trawl EM category are to comply with all provisions of the trawl EM category, including those specified in regulations, the ADP, and in their individual VMPs. This final rule also adds regulations at § 679.51(g) to specify the EM system requirements for vessels using pelagic trawl gear.

A vessel will remain in the trawl EM category for all directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear for the entirety of the fishing year for which they request to participate in the trawl EM category. This requirement is needed to maintain the sampling design outlined in the ADP. A tender vessel will remain in the trawl EM category at all times when receiving catch from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category during the fishing year. A catcher vessel in the trawl EM category must deliver catch only to a tender vessel, shoreside processor, or stationary floating processor that is also approved to participate in the trawl EM category.

This final rule establishes two coverage categories within the trawl EM category: (1) full coverage; and (2) partial coverage. Unless otherwise specified, the trawl EM category encompasses both the full coverage and partial coverage trawl EM categories.

The final rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)( 2 ) defines the full coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessels operating in the BS or Community Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries. These vessels are currently in the Observer Program's full coverage category. For the fishing year, if a catcher vessel is approved to be in the full coverage trawl EM category, that vessel will be subject to this final rule for every fishing trip in which the vessel deploys pelagic trawl gear. This means, in addition to other requirements, that these vessels must ensure their EM systems are operating and actively recording for the duration of every pelagic trawl gear fishing trip and associated offload. The owner or operator of a vessel in the full coverage trawl EM category will be responsible for contracting with a permitted EM hardware service provider, as specified at § 679.51(g)(1)(ix)(B), to procure, install, and maintain EM equipment on their vessel. To pay for video review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category, this final rule establishes a new full coverage EM review fee at § 679.56.

The final rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)( 1 ) defines the partial coverage trawl EM category for catcher vessels operating in the GOA or AI. These vessels are currently in the Observer Program's partial coverage category.

Catcher vessels approved to be in the partial coverage trawl EM category must continue to log all trips in ODDS. Access to ODDS is available through the NMFS Alaska Region website (see ADDRESSES ). For the fishing year, every fishing trip in which a partial coverage catcher vessel deploys solely pelagic trawl gear is considered a part of the trawl EM category. This means that these vessels must, in addition to other requirements, ensure their EM systems are operating and actively recording for the duration of every fishing trip and associated offload. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category are prohibited from deploying non-pelagic trawl gear while on a fishing trip subject to EM coverage. Catcher vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category are required to deliver catch only to tender vessels or processors in the trawl EM category having a NMFS-approved VMP or CMCP. Vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category will use NMFS' contracted EM hardware service provider that has been procured through the partial coverage fee program. EM equipment for vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category are paid for by the observer fees as specified at § 679.55.

This final rule adds EM requirements for tender vessels that are used to transport unprocessed groundfish received from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to an associated processor. As part of the unprocessed groundfish chain of custody, it is necessary for tender vessels to comply with EM requirements to ensure no sorting of catch occurs before the catch reaches the processor. This final rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(B) allows the owner or operator of a tender vessel to request to be placed in the trawl EM category before receiving any delivery from a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category. A tender vessel that is approved to be in the trawl EM category must comply with applicable vessel responsibilities specified at § 679.51(g)(3) for every delivery received and offloaded subject to the trawl EM category, including ensuring their EM system is operating and actively recording for the duration of every such trip and associated offload.

For shoreside processors or stationary floating processors to receive deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category, this final rule includes additional catch handling requirements. Shoreside processors or stationary floating processors indicate their intent to receive trawl EM category deliveries in the upcoming fishing year during the annual CMCP process. Under this final rule at § 679.28(g)(7), (9), and (10), shoreside processors or stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category are required to follow specified salmon sorting and handling procedures to ensure shoreside observers have full access to salmon bycatch. This final rule at § 679.28(g)(9) allows observers at these processors to collect full salmon and Pacific halibut data and necessary biological samples, which are vital in monitoring the health and status of those stocks in Alaska.

Current regulations at § 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C) require salmon retention and storage for processors in the BS pollock fishery. This final rule moves these existing regulations to § 679.28(g)(9)(ii) and (g)(10) and extends those regulations to shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category in the GOA. Each year, NMFS publishes an Observer Sampling Manual, which contains the comprehensive sampling procedures and methods to be used by observers to collect fishery-dependent data but does not establish the sampling rate. The criteria used to determine the sampling rate required at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category will be determined annually and published in the ADP.

There are currently two types of EM service providers: (1) EM hardware service providers that equip and maintain EM systems aboard vessels; and (2) EM review service providers that receive and review EM data from EM systems. This final rule adds a regulation at § 679.2 to define both kinds ofEM service providers. NMFS may contract with or grant a permit to a prospective EM hardware service provider if their data are able to be reviewed by the current EM service provider NMFS has selected for reviewing EM data.

This final rule at § 679.52(d) adds the procedures for EM hardware service providers to obtain an EM hardware service provider permit and the responsibilities of EM hardware service providers. Prospective EM hardware service providers need to obtain an EM hardware service provider permit. Once approved and issued by NMFS, the EM hardware service provider permit is valid until the provider does not provide EM services for a period of 12 consecutive months to vessels in the trawl EM category or until NMFS removes the permit. Performance of the EM hardware service provider will be assessed annually on the ability of the provider to meet program objectives as outlined in § 679.51 and the ADP.

An EM data review service provider is a provider that NMFS contracts with, or otherwise has an established business relationship with, to review, interpret, or analyze EM data as required under this final rule at § 679.51. To avoid conflicts of interest, NMFS will select EM data review service providers that do not have a direct financial relationship with vessels in the trawl EM category.

The operator of each catcher vessel or tender vessel approved by NMFS to be in the trawl EM category must make their vessel available to an EM hardware service provider for installation and servicing of all required EM system components according to this final rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(ix). The EM hardware service provider will install the EM system and cameras in locations that meet the monitoring objectives annually specified in the ADP. Full coverage vessels will choose their permitted EM hardware service provider, while NMFS will assign partial coverage catcher vessels or tender vessels a NMFS-permitted EM hardware service provider.

If a vessel already has an EM system installed from a non-permitted EM hardware service provider, the catcher vessel or tender vessel operator will work with a NMFS-permitted EM hardware service provider to modify the EM system as necessary to meet the specifications in the trawl EM category.

After EM equipment has been installed or serviced, the catcher vessel or tender vessel operator will develop a VMP with the EM hardware service provider and submit it to NMFS for approval according to this final rule at § 679.51(g)(2). A VMP is a document that outlines operator responsibilities for the trawl EM category, including requirements for sending EM data to the EM data review service provider for review, restrictions should EM equipment malfunction, and how feedback from NMFS or the EM data review service provider will be communicated to vessel operators. NMFS provides a VMP template for guidance to the EM service provider and the vessel operator on the elements NMFS requires in a final NMFS-approved VMP.

The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator must agree to comply with the components of the VMP, acknowledge as much by signing the VMP, and submit the signed VMP to NMFS. NMFS reviews the VMP for completeness and may request additional clarification. If the VMP meets the requirements established in the VMP template, NMFS will approve the VMP and place the vessel in a trawl EM category for the upcoming fishing year.

A catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category is required to maintain a copy of their current NMFS-approved VMP onboard at all times while that catcher vessel conducts fishing activities, or tender vessel receives EM deliveries, as part of the trawl EM category. If NMFS does not approve the VMP, NMFS will issue an initial administrative decision (IAD) to the vessel owner or operator that will explain the basis for the disapproval. The vessel owner or operator may file an administrative appeal under the administrative appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.

The catcher vessel or tender vessel operator must make the NMFS-approved VMP available upon request by NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), a NMFS-authorized officer, or other NMFS-authorized personnel (see this final rule § 679.51(g)(4)(iv)).

If NMFS determines that a catcher vessel or tender vessel failed to comply with its VMP, the catcher vessel or tender vessel's application for placement in the trawl EM category may not be approved the following year(s).

Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators and owners in the trawl EM category must comply with all elements of the NMFS-approved VMP and maintain the EM system in working order, including ensuring the EM system is powered and functioning throughout the fishing trip, keeping cameras clean and unobstructed, and ensuring the system is not tampered with, consistent with this final rule at § 679.51(g)(3). Catcher vessel and tender vessel owners and operators are also required to ensure that power is maintained to the EM system at all times when the vessel is under way or the engine is operating on trips monitored using EM. Catcher vessel operators are required to follow EM system procedures prior to deploying gear as specified in this final rule at § 679.7(j)(1). Additionally, catcher vessel and tender vessel operators are required to ensure the EM system is fully functional prior to retrieving gear during the fishing trip or prior to receiving a delivery, consistent with this final rule at § 679.51(g)(4)(iii).

Before fishing gear is retrieved or an offload is received, as applicable, the catcher vessel and tender vessel operators need to verify that all components of the EM system are functioning. Instructions for completing this verification will be provided in the vessel's VMP consistent with this final rule at § 679.51(g)(2)(vi).

Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators will be required to follow landing notice procedures specified in the VMP, consistent with this final rule at § 679.51(g)(3). The landing notice is transmitted by the catcher vessel or tender vessel to the intended shoreside processor or stationary floating processor, consistent with the timeline specified in the VMP prior to returning to port. After receiving the landing notice from the vessel, the processor will relay that information to shoreside observers.

Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators are prohibited from tampering with the EM system and from harassing their EM service provider, EM reviewers, or any other monitoring personnel who may be working with vessel operators in this program. This final rule adds to existing EM prohibitions at § 679.7(j) to ensure EM system functionality and the data from these systems are usable for fisheries management. Other operator responsibilities are identified in the VMP to meet data needs for EM monitoring.

Catcher vessel and tender vessel operators must submit the EM data to the EM data review provider using a method specified in the NMFS-approved VMP. Operators of vessels in the trawl EM category must submit EM data after a specified number of trips, consistent with the vessel's NMFS-approved VMP. The frequency of data submittal will be defined in the VMP and could change based on data needs identified by NMFS, consistent with this final rule at § 679.51(g).

The EM system must be fully operational as described in the VMP. The VMP will list EM system malfunctions considered contrary to the Observer Program's data collection objectives. The VMP will also describe the procedures to follow if malfunctions occur, including when to contact the EM service provider and OLE. This final rule at § 679.51(g)(4) describes the responsibilities of the catcher vessel and tender vessel operator in case of an EM system malfunction.

With trawl EM, catcher vessel operators retain all catch except when doing so would compromise the safety and stability of the vessel (see this final rule at § 679.7(j)(2)).

For all fishing trips, catcher vessels will be expected to avoid sorting and discarding catch to the greatest extent practicable. Unsorted catch must be delivered to a tender vessel, shoreside processor, or a stationary floating processor to ensure observers have access to all catch.

To promote retention of catch for catcher vessels in the trawl EM category, this final rule includes exceptions to regulations that otherwise require discarding catch at sea. Namely, under the final rule, catcher vessels in the trawl EM category will not be subject to the prohibition against exceeding Maximum Retainable Amounts (MRAs) in the BS, AI, and GOA; the prohibition against vessels having on board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species; and the pollock trip limit in the GOA.

This final rule exempts vessels in the trawl EM category from the prohibition at § 679.7(a)(16) pertaining to MRAs that limit retention of incidentally caught species so that total harvest can be managed up to, but not over, the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) by the end of the year. The MRA prohibition at § 679.7(a)(16) requires at-sea discarding of fish above the MRA amount for each species. While the prohibition on exceeding the MRAs is removed for vessels participating in the trawl EM category, under this final rule, NMFS will continue to use MRA regulations at § 679.20(e) to determine whether a vessel is “directed fishing,” (see § 679.2 for definition) for a particular species for various purposes ( e.g., compliance with § 679.22) and to gauge whether the vessel's behavior has changed, in conjunction with the Trawl EM Incentive Plan Agreement (TEM IPA) discussed below. If NMFS determines an IPA is not effective in preventing vessel behavior changes, NMFS may not allow a vessel to participate in the trawl EM category program in the following year(s).

This final rule also adds an exception for vessels participating in the trawl EM category from the regulation at § 679.7(a)(14) that prohibits vessels in the BSAI and GOA from having on board, at any particular time, 20 or more crabs of any species with a carapace width of more than 1.5 inches (38 millimeters) at the widest dimension. Rather than discarding such crab, the final rule requires catcher vessels to retain all crabs for enumeration by shoreside observers at the processor, as described below in the PSC Retention section of this preamble.

Additionally, this final rule exempts vessels in the trawl EM category from the prohibitions at § 679.7(b)(2) that limit catcher vessels' harvest of pollock in the GOA (commonly referred to as the pollock trip limit). Currently, catcher vessels are subject to a 300,000 lb (136 mt) on-board retention limit on pollock, requiring vessels to discard at sea any pollock in excess of 300,000 lbs (136 mt). The final rule will require catcher vessels in the trawl EM category to retain all such catch.

Under this final rule, catcher vessels fishing in the trawl EM category are required to retain all species categorized as PSC, including salmon and crab, so that they can be fully enumerated by shoreside observers at the shoreside processor or stationary floating processor as specified at § 679.21(a)(2).

To maintain the controls on the behavior of catcher vessels in the pollock fishery that the MRAs, crab retention limits, and the GOA pollock trip limits provide, this final rule includes provisions for a TEM IPA. An IPA is an industry-developed contractual arrangement that is approved by NMFS.

Under this final rule, in order to be qualified to participate in the trawl EM category, catcher vessels in the partial coverage category will be required to become a party to a TEM IPA. Under this final rule at § 679.57, TEM IPAs are structured to limit changes in vessel behavior as a result of this final rule.

To ensure IPAs are effective, IPA parties will be required to demonstrate to the Council through annual reports that the IPA is accomplishing the Council's intent that each vessel in the trawl EM category limit changes in behavior. The representative of each approved TEM IPA will submit a written annual report to the Council, which will be available to the public. Additionally, NMFS inseason management staff will continue to track bycatch and pollock harvest by vessels in the trawl EM category and provide updates in the Annual Inseason Report to the Council. Upon receipt of the TEM IPA Annual Report and the NMFS Annual Inseason Report, the Council may re-evaluate the goals for the TEM IPA and make adjustments as necessary subject to NMFS' approval.

NMFS will approve a TEM IPA if the IPA meets the criteria specified in this final rule at § 679.57. Each year, NMFS will publish on the NMFS Alaska Region website the approved list of TEM IPAs and NMFS Approval Memorandums, the list of parties to each IPA, approved modifications to the TEM IPAs, and the list of catcher vessels that, on average, harvest bycatch in quantities that would exceed MRAs and catch more than 300,000 lbs (136 mt) of pollock per fishing trip in the GOA. For the sake of clarity, each TEM IPA will define how these averages will be calculated over the fishing year.

Logbooks are necessary for trawl EM data flow, and the trawl EM category does not work without this component. Under this final rule, logbooks are required for all participants in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use NMFS-approved paper or electronic logbooks and follow the logbook-related regulations at § 679.5(a).

Under this final rule, catcher vessels and tender vessels in the trawl EM category may only deliver fish to a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor that has a NMFS-approved CMCP. Furthermore, processors are prohibited from receiving deliveries from a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category without a NMFS-approved CMCP.

This final rule modifies § 679.28(g) to reorganize CMCP requirements to improve clarity and consistency and to add provisions necessary to facilitate observer data collection for deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category.

In the ADP, NMFS defines the criteria for determining the necessary number of observers at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. The criteria for determining the necessary number of observers for a given processor may include tonnage processed, number of deliveries, or processing hours. These criteria apply to all processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the trawl EM category. The specific number of observers necessary to meet sampling objectives are listed in the CMCP, which NMFS may update throughout the year to ensure that the necessary number of observers are present, as processing effort may change seasonally.

Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving deliveries from vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category procure observer services by arranging and paying for observer services directly from a permitted observer provider consistent with existing regulations at § 679.51(d). This final rule modifies regulations governing observer provider permitting and responsibilities at § 679.52 to remove fax as an electronic communication method, update how often specific information must be submitted to NMFS (see Observer Program Fees section), and clarify the requirements for observer providers to monitor observer conduct and address observer misconduct.

NMFS is authorized under section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require Observer Program participants in any North Pacific fishery to pay a fee for observer and EM monitoring provided the fee does not exceed 2 percent of the fishery's ex-vessel value.

To pay for video review services for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category, this final rule establishes a new full coverage EM review fee at § 679.56. This new fee will be used by NMFS to pay for the costs of data review, storage, and transmission of EM data for vessels in the full coverage trawl EM category. The annual cost of EM review, data storage, and transmission will be divided among full coverage vessels in the trawl EM category. NMFS will use the pollock catch history ( i.e., actual harvest amount) from the previous year to divide the cost equitably among full coverage participants in the trawl EM category for that year. NMFS will send invoices to vessel owners and payment will be required by May 31 each year. Failure to pay the full coverage trawl EM fee will prevent a catcher vessel or tender vessel from being selected for the trawl EM category in the following year as specified in this final rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(4).

Consistent with regulations at § 679.55, NMFS uses funds from the existing observer fees to pay for EM hardware and review services for vessels in the partial coverage category. Catcher vessels and tender vessels in the partial coverage trawl EM category (vessels operating in the GOA and AI pollock fisheries) will continue to pay the existing observer fee as specified at § 679.55. The partial coverage category is funded through a system of fees collected from fishery participants (vessels and processors) under authority of section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS uses partial coverage fees to procure shoreside observers, deploy and support EM equipment on selected vessels, and pay for EM video review and data storage.

In addition to the regulations necessary to implement the trawl EM category, NMFS revises the following regulations for clarity and efficiency:

• Remove the expired prohibition at § 679.7(a)(17), specifying that neither catcher vessels nor catcher processors could act as a tender vessel until all groundfish or groundfish product was offloaded and that they could not harvest groundfish while operating as a tender vessel. That prohibition was added as part of an emergency rule (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001), which expired on July 17, 2001. To date, the regulation has not been removed. This final rule removes the expired prohibition at § 679.7(a)(17) to prevent confusion, especially as § 679.7(a)(11) contains a similar prohibition.

• Regulations implementing EM for nontrawl vessels in the partial coverage category of the Observer Program are modified to remove the phrase “ EM selection pool ” and to add in its place “ Nontrawl EM selection pool ” to clearly identify regulations applicable to the different EM categories. Multiple gear types, excluding trawl, participate in the nontrawl EM selection pool, while only trawl vessels are eligible for the trawl EM category.

• This final rule moves regulations specifying salmon sorting and handling practice from § 679.21(f)(15)(ii)(C)( 2 ) through ( 6 ) to § 679.28(g)(9) and (10). This move is necessary to consolidate all CMCP-related regulations into a single location.

• Replace all instances of “video data storage device” with “EM data” in § 679.51(f) to broaden the language to allow for future data formats.

• Remove fax numbers in §§ 679.28(g) and 679.51(g) to match current practice that has abandoned fax usage.

NMFS received 17 comment letters on the Notice of Availability and the proposed rule. At the public hearings and through the NOA and proposed rule comment periods, NMFS received comments from individuals, fishery observers, and pollock fishery participants including harvesters and processors. NMFS has summarized and responded to the 25 unique comments below.

Comment 1: Indigenous peoples and other affected parties should be involved in the development of future EM actions.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment. This rule was developed through a public process at the Council ( https://www.npfmc.org/ ). The Council held multiple meetings over several years to discuss stages of the EFP and this rule as it was developed. All meetings held by the Council are open to the public, announced on the Council's web page, and accept comments and testimony by the public. NMFS seeks to include diverse viewpoints on the development of future EM actions and will continue to improve outreach to notify and engage all interested parties, including Alaska Native Tribes, of actions under development.

Comment 2: Collaborative efforts that are inclusive of agency, industry, scientific, and vendor personnel are essential for addressing the complex topic of implementing EM programs that meet management needs.

Response: NMFS agrees that collaborative efforts were integral to the success of the EFP and development of this rule.

Comment 3: The proposed rule does not allow vessels to return to observer coverage during a fishing year. Vessels should be provided this flexibility in the case of EM system issues and malfunctions that cannot be repaired in a timely manner.

Response: The EM program is voluntary and vessels can opt-in on an annual basis. In order to maintain the sampling design outlined in the ADP, a catcher vessel must remain in the trawl EM category for all directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear for the entirety of the fishing year and would not be able to leave the trawl EM category during that fishing year. Based on the experience of participants in the EFP, EM systems are reliable and NMFS does not anticipate that malfunctions would limit a vessel's participation in a pollock fishery.

Comment 4: The proposed rule states that NMFS retains the authority to deploy at-sea observers aboard vessels in the EM category, which could be seen as punitive.

Response: NMFS envisions that at-sea observers will be deployed through the established ADP process, which includes a public process through the Council and its associated monitoring committees. The ability for NMFS to deploy at-sea observers for the purpose of collecting biological data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery is necessary to allow the maximum number of EM vessels to participate in the program each year. Without this flexibility, NMFS would need to reduce the number of vessels allowed to participate in the trawl EM category and require some vessels to carry observers every year, rather than deploying observers on vessels only as needed to target specific data needs.

Comment 5: The proposed rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(iv) does not specify a date when vessels will receive notification of approval for the trawl EM category. This timeframe is critical to both vessels and EM service providers for planning EM system installations, upgrades, or repairs that must occur prior to the season start.

Response: NMFS agrees that vessels need to be notified in a timely manner. Generally, vessels can expect to receive notification of approval within a month of the November 1 deadline to request to join the trawl EM category.

Comment 6: Please clarify what happens if a vessel indicates that they intend to deploy nonpelagic gear, which puts them into the observer coverage pool, but ultimately only deploys pelagic trawl gear.

Response: A vessel in the trawl EM category that indicates they intend to deploy nonpelagic trawl gear on a trip, but instead deploys only pelagic gear during the trip, would be in violation of the requirement to use EM on all pelagic trawl trips, as specified in the definition of “Trawl EM category” at § 679.2. NMFS would view this behavior as a vessel not providing accurate data and therefore not complying with the trawl EM regulations.

Comment 7: Can video data be used to identify vessel personnel for non-fisheries related enforcement action?

Response: No. The video recorded by the vessel EM system is covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act's confidentiality provisions. NMFS is not authorized to release EM footage unless an exception set forth in section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act applies.

Comment 8: Vessels participating in the trawl EM category should be allowed to carry nonpelagic trawl gear while fishing in Type I and II crab closure areas for both trawl EM category and non-trawl EM category trips, where they are currently prohibited to do so. During the EFP, vessels in the trawl EM category were allowed to carry nonpelagic gear when trawling in these areas on trawl EM category trips to test the capabilities of EM for monitoring whether nonpelagic gear was deployed, and no issues were encountered.

Response: NMFS agrees that, on trawl EM category fishing trips, EM will monitor whether a nonpelagic trawl is deployed in a Type I or II crab closure area. NMFS detected no issues during the EFP with participating vessels deploying nonpelagic trawls. Based on this comment, NMFS revised regulations at § 679.22(b)(1)(i) and (ii) to allow vessels in the trawl EM category during trawl EM category fishing trips to carry, but not deploy, nonpelagic trawl gear in these areas. Under this final rule, all EM footage captured by catcher vessels in the EM category will be reviewed. Vessels will be required to indicate in their VMP which of its net reels contain nonpelagic trawl gear, as they did during the EFP. Revising regulations to allow nonpelagic trawl gear to be on board vessels during fishing trips that fall outside of the trawl EM category is beyond the scope of this action.

Comment 9: Catcher vessels are required to indicate whether they would like to participate in the trawl EM category by November 1 of each year. This requirement creates difficulties for tender vessels as the associated shoreside processor likely will not know which vessels will be available to participate in the trawl EM category until February of the upcoming fishing year.

Response: The November 1 deadline does not extend to tender vessels. NMFS will specify the anticipated number of tender vessels each year in the ADP based on available funds in the partial coverage category. While the November 1 deadline does not apply, tender vessels must have a NMFS-approved VMP in place prior to receiving catch from trawl EM category catcher vessels.

Comment 10: Under the proposed rule at § 679.7(j)(2)(ii), shoreside processors are prohibited from (1) beginning to sort a trawl EM category offload before an observer has completed biological sampling of all salmon and (2) continuing to sort trawl EM category catch if the salmon storage container is full. These requirements impact current fishery operations associated with open access fisheries, where there is a race to fish. These open access offloads are currently sampled at a 33 percent rate under the EFP, and, as such, the regulations should not prevent further offloading of catch. In the rare instance of conflicting sampling of offloads, the subsequent offload could be selected by the observers.

Response: Based on this comment, NMFS revised this final rule at §§ 679.7(j)(2)(ii)(D), 679.7(j)(2)(ii)(E), and 679.28(g)(9)(ii)(D) to specify these regulations are applicable only to offloads of catch from the BS or CDQ pollock fisheries. This will not change salmon accounting in the partial coverage pollock fisheries in the GOA and AI.

Additionally, for the GOA and AI open access pollock fisheries, NMFS added § 679.28(g)(9)(ii)(E) to this final rule to state: “Regarding deliveries of pollock from the Gulf of Alaska or Aleutian Islands, observer(s) must be given the opportunity to complete the count of salmon and the collection of scientific data or biological samples from all offloads selected for monitoring. When the observer(s) has completed all counting and sampling duties for the offload, plant personnel must remove the salmon in the presence of the observer(s) from the salmon storage container and location where salmon are counted and biological samples or scientific data are collected.” This additional requirement does not prevent processors from sorting the next GOA or AI offload if the observer(s) are sampling the previous offload.

Comment 11: Processors providing hardware to support Observer Program software is inefficient as it often requires technology support skills that are outside the scope of a processor's abilities. These required communications could be more efficient if the Observer Program provided the required hardware with the desired technical specifications to processors.

Response: Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors will remain subject to existing regulations requiring them to provide hardware for observers. Any changes to these regulations are outside the scope of this action. Shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in the trawl EM category fall into either the full or partial coverage categories for observer coverage. Depending on the coverage category of the processor, the observer provider or the processor may be required to supply observers with communication devices. Under the full coverage category, the shoreside processor or stationary floating processor is required to supply communication devices ( i.e., phones, computers, etc.). Under the partial coverage category, the observer provider will be required to supply communication devices as outlined in its contract with NMFS.

Comment 12: The workload at shoreside processors will change drastically under the trawl EM category. With the increases to daily workload, there will be an increased chance for observers to experience illness and physical injuries while working 12 hours a day for the duration of a 90 day contract. Previously, observers with minor injuries were able to be placed at a shoreside processor due to the light amount of physical work.

Response: Observer safety is the top priority of this final rule. The trawl EM category shifts observer sampling duties from at-sea catcher vessels to shoreside processors and stationary floating processors, thereby reducing risks to observers associated with working on commercial fishing vessel decks, where they are exposed to many of the same hazards as commercial harvesters. NMFS encourages observers to work directly with their employer on full coverage deployment assignments to best match their physical, mental, and professional needs. For example, an extended deployment to an AFA shoreside processor or stationary floating processor may not suit all observers at all times.

NMFS encourages observers to report injuries and illnesses that may impact their ability to carry out their sampling duties, including the need to take time off for health reasons. Such incidents are not uncommon given that observing is often mentally and physically challenging. In the event that an observer is unable to work, NMFS staff will communicate with observers through inseason advisors and field office staff to reassess and, if necessary, alter or reduce sampling requirements for the processor at issue. The expectation is not to increase the workload of other observers at that processor, but rather to guide the remaining observers to assess the workload and determine which sampling priorities can be completed in the absence of an injured or ill observer. Completing the full suite of sampling duties may not be possible. The health and wellbeing of observers takes precedence over sampling duties at all times. This action does not alter the ability for observer provider companies to re-assign observers to accommodate health conditions.

Comment 13: There needs to be oversight for when EM hardware service providers introduce new hardware and technology for monitoring to ensure that the dependability and monitoring needs of this program are met.

Response: NMFS agrees that substantive changes to approved EM hardware or software would necessitate approval by NMFS. Based on this comment, NMFS revised this final rule at § 679.52(d)(3)(ii) to include the following: “At any time after initial approval of the EM hardware service provider permit, this testing requirement must be applied to and met by any EM system requiring new, or significantly updated, hardware or software installed onboard the vessel.”

Comment 14: The proposed rule states that a vessel operator must verify all cameras are recording and that all sensors and other EM system components are functional prior to hauling back. Clarify the extent to which a vessel should troubleshoot the EM system in situations that may necessitate immediate haulback.

Response: Vessel owners and operators are required to ensure their EM systems are fully functional, regardless of fishing activities, as specified in this final rule at § 679.51(g)(3). The VMP indicates the actions a vessel must take if a malfunction occurs.

Comment 15: A vessel operator may not be aware of some EM system malfunctions that occur and should not be responsible or subject to enforcement action in the event of a malfunction. The EM hardware service provider may be aware of issues that the vessel is unaware of. Please clarify how this information will be communicated to vessels, service providers, and OLE when feedback from the EM review provider occurs.

Response: Vessels are obligated to actively monitor their EM systems as specified in this final rule at § 679.51(g)(3). If an issue is discovered during the EM review process, OLE will assess, among other things, whether the vessel had the ability to address it by following their VMP.

Vessels should work with their EM hardware service provider to ensure that they have all the information necessary to meet regulatory requirements. EM hardware service providers and vessels will receive EM review feedback as review is completed throughout a fishing year by NMFS's chosen EM review service provider. In any case, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the vessel owner and vessel operator to understand and comply with the regulations governing their participation in the trawl EM program.

Comment 16: The proposed rule at § 679.7(j)(2)(i)(B) states that there is a prohibition on “codend dumping” and “codend bleeding.” Under the EFP, vessels were allowed to “bleed” their codends if necessary to maintain the safety and stability of the vessel. This prohibition will compromise a vessel's ability to use salmon excluders and methods to control catch for vessel safety.

Response: The intent of § 679.7(j)(2)(i)(B) is to not allow discards except for those necessary to maintain the safety and stability of the vessel. Codend dumping or bleeding are commonly used to maintain vessel safety and stability. Based on this comment, NMFS removed the phrase “This includes `codend dumping' or `codend bleeding' ” from this final rule at § 679.7(j)(2)(i)(B) for clarity.

Comment 17: Remove any reference to “directed fishing” as a metric to evaluate and penalize a vessel for its fishing behavior and instead require the IPAs to monitor this.

Response: NMFS disagrees and is choosing to retain the references to “directed fishing.” Directed fishing is defined in § 679.2 to mean “unless indicated otherwise, any fishing activity that results in the retention of an amount of a species or species group on board a vessel that is greater than the maximum retainable amount for that species or species group as calculated under § 679.20.” The term directed fishing is used in various NMFS Alaska regulations that are not affected by this final rule ( e.g., closure areas under § 679.22).

Furthermore, under this final rule, whether a trawl EM category vessel is directed fishing for a species other than pollock—that is, whether a vessel conducts fishing activity that exceeds the MRA for a non-pollock species—will be used to gauge whether, alongside the TEM IPA, there have been changes in vessel behavior, even though the vessel is exempt from the MRA prohibition at § 679.7(a)(16). And, for clarity, exceeding an MRA does not necessarily indicate a change in behavior for purposes of the TEM IPA. For example, if all vessels directed fishing for pollock in a given area exceed the MRA for Pacific ocean perch, that would not necessarily be seen as a change in behavior. If potential changes of behavior, such as directed fishing for non-pollock species, are indicated by MRA calculations, NMFS will contact the TEM IPA representative. This is a collaborative process that seeks to identify the cause of concern and effect changes to fishing behavior to address the concern. If NMFS determines that an IPA is not effective in preventing vessel behavior changes, NMFS may elect not to allow a vessel to participate in the trawl EM category in the following year(s).

Comment 18: Exemptions from the prohibitions regarding exceeding MRAs at § 679.7(a)(16), the GOA catcher vessel harvest limit for pollock at § 679.7(b)(2), and the trawl gear performance standard at § 679.7(a)(14) enable participating vessels to exceed established limits without consequences and incentivize fishing for species that are closed to pelagic trawl gear. Catch that exceeds MRAs should be prohibited from entering commerce, as industry-managed IPAs are not effective at protecting closed stocks. Catch that exceeds MRAs will impact the closure of seasons and areas for the protection of endangered Steller sea lions.

Response: Improved retention of catch is necessary to provide observers stationed at shoreside processors with unsorted catch for collection of biological samples and to minimize potential biases in data collection. Improved retention greatly reduces at-sea discards and improves catch accounting, resulting in improved estimates of catch and bycatch in the pollock fisheries.

It is necessary to remove prohibitions regarding discards, such as MRAs, GOA pollock trip limit, and the crab standard, in order to improve retention. Vessels in the trawl EM category will deliver catch to processors that would otherwise be discarded at sea, thereby reducing the overall waste in the fishery while improving catch accounting of PSC due to sampling at shoreside processors and stationary floating processors. As discussed above, NMFS will still calculate MRAs to determine whether a vessel is directed fishing for non-pollock species and whether their behavior has changed under this final rule.

The TEM IPA was modeled on the current salmon bycatch IPAs (§ 679.21(f)(12)), which have proven to be a successful method for the BS pollock fleet to modify its behavior to meet NMFS management goals. In addition, the TEM IPAs were implemented as part of the EFP process and proved effective at controlling changes in vessel behavior. If NMFS or the Council determines that an IPA is not effective in preventing vessel behavior changes, NMFS may not allow a vessel to participate in the trawl EM category in the following year(s).

This final rule does not affect the harvest limits, season dates, areas fished, or fishing gear requirements that trawl EM vessels must comply with. Therefore, this action is not expected to change fishery activities in a way that would negatively affect any Endangered Species Act-listed species through increased potential for competition for prey, disturbance, or incidental takes.

Nevertheless, in response to this comment, NMFS added two new regulations for greater clarity. First, in this final rule at § 679.7(j)(2)(i)(F), NMFS added the following prohibition to make clear that it is unlawful for any person to “Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to deploy trawl gear in an area that is closed, for any reason, to directed fishing for pollock.” This additional provision will ensure that vessels in the trawl EM category will remain prohibited from fishing in closure areas they otherwise would not be eligible to fish in if they were not participating in the trawl EM category. Second, at § 679.57(f)(2)(iii)(E), this final rule adds the following to the list of information the TEM IPA Annual Report must contain: “Identification of and the TEM IPA's response to vessels directed fishing in conflict with harvest specifications or directed fishing for Steller Sea Lion forage species within closed Steller Sea Lion protection areas.”

Comment 19: The IPA representative for the GOA will need the aggregated non-confidential data to perform the analysis for the annual IPA report.

Response: NMFS is committed to working with the TEM IPA representatives in the formation of the TEM IPA Annual Reports.

Comment 20: Accounting for PSC both at-sea and shoreside is important. Cameras aboard the vessel may not be able to identify the species of crab aboard a vessel in the event of an at-sea discard.

Response: NMFS agrees that accounting for catch of all species, including crab, is important. While the EM system aboard these vessels is not able to identify crab to a species level, since all crab will be retained, any crab catch will be accounted for at the shoreside processor. Participation in the trawl EM category requires vessels to minimize discards to the greatest extent practicable, including PSC, except where doing so would compromise the safety and stability of the vessel. This requirement will ensure that all catch, with the exception of jellyfish and large organisms ( e.g., sharks and marine mammals), will be delivered to the shoreside processor where they will be subject to shoreside observer sampling. At-sea discards of species that may be PSC will be reported during the EM review process and through shoreside processor landing reports.

Comment 21: Sample station requirements at shoreside processors should be clearly defined to ensure the observer's safety and ability to collect samples. Details of the sample station requirements should be specifically listed and easily comparable to other sample station requirements. Communication expectations of shoreside processors should be clearly outlined and should utilize current technology to ensure the observer receives all necessary information.

Response: The CMCP is a flexible tool that can be adjusted throughout the year through an amendment process. This mechanism allows NMFS to work with the shoreside processor to alter sampling stations to meet observer sampling needs. Additionally, NMFS will review CMCPs on an annual basis and amend them as necessary. Each shoreside processor is unique, requiring a flexible tool to address each situation. This action includes requirements for the location of the observer sampling station, platform scale, minimum workspace, table size, and diverter board. The CMCP will clearly outline PSC handling requirements, specifically for salmon and halibut.

The CMCP will also facilitate communication between the vessels, shoreside processors, and the observers by requiring that all necessary information be supplied to the observers.

Comment 22: Full coverage vessels will be responsible for paying costs associated with EM video review. Therefore, they should be able to choose between EM review service providers similar to how EM hardware service providers are selected. This would require NMFS to contract with more than one EM review service provider.

Response: NMFS has not received any new resources to establish EM programs and does not have the additional staff capacity to administer multiple EM review service provider contracts. The trawl EM program is voluntary; there is no requirement for a vessel to participate in the program if they prefer a different EM review provider.

Comment 23: The Council deliberations during the development of this program made clear that observer fees should cover the GOA processors' observer costs. Please clarify that the partial coverage fee will cover these additional costs.

Response: The partial coverage fee will be used to pay for observers stationed at non-AFA shoreside processors and stationary floating processors.

Comment 24: Please define how trawl EM category costs would be covered for vessels participating in both the full and partial coverage pollock fisheries.

Response: Vessels participating in the AFA pollock fishery, for any number of trips, are considered to be full coverage vessels and are subject to the EM service requirements for full coverage vessels as specified in this final rule at § 679.51(g)(1)(ix)(B). Full coverage catcher vessels and tender vessels will procure their EM hardware service provider and pay the EM review fee.

Vessels participating only in the partial coverage pollock fishery are considered to be partial coverage vessels and are subject to the EM service requirements for partial coverage vessels as specified at § 679.51(g)(1)(ix)(A). Partial coverage catcher vessels and tender vessels will be covered by the existing observer fee.

Comment 25: Close salmon fisheries to protect Southern Resident killer whales.

Response: This rule pertains to the BS, AI, GOA, and CDQ pollock fisheries, which do not overlap with any salmon fishery. In any event, this action improves salmon bycatch accounting in the pollock fisheries.

This final rule includes the following substantive changes from the proposed rule to address public comments and clarify regulatory language. Throughout the regulatory text, NMFS also made technical and grammar edits to correct regulatory cross references, use consistent terms, remove redundancy, and promote clarity.

At § 679.2 NMFS revised the definition for “Trawl EM category” by removing the phrase “the defined group of” and adding the phrase “when those vessels are directed fishing for, or receiving deliveries of, pollock.” This revision was necessary to ensure that catcher vessels in the trawl EM category are only subject to the trawl EM category regulations when they are directed fishing for pollock with pelagic trawl gear.

At § 679.7(j)(2)(i)(B), and as explained in more detail in response to comment 16, NMFS removed the phrase “This includes `codend dumping' or `codend bleeding' ” to clarify that bled codends are not prohibited if necessary to maintain the safety and stability of the vessel.

As explained in more detail in response to comment 18, NMFS added § 679.7(j)(2)(i)(F) to make it unlawful for any person to “Use a catcher vessel in the trawl EM category to deploy trawl gear in an area that is closed, for any reason, to directed fishing for pollock.”

At § 679.7(j)(2)(iii)(B), NMFS moved the words “without an approved VMP” within the sentence for clarity.

At § 679.7(j)(2)(ii)(D) and (E), and as explained in more detail in response to comment 10, NMFS added language to clarify that the prohibitions on stopping or delaying offloads due to observer salmon sampling duties would not apply to the GOA or AI pollock fisheries. The GOA and AI pollock fisheries are open access and delaying offloads may cause economic inefficiencies. Instead, § 679.7(j)(2)(ii)(D) and (E) apply to the BS and CDQ full coverage pollock fisheries where all offloads are sampled.

At § 679.22(b)(1)(i) and (ii), and as explained in more detail in response to comment 8, NMFS added language that allows vessels in the trawl EM category to have nonpelagic trawl gear aboard the vessel on trawl EM category fishing trips while fishing in Type I and Type II areas in Figure 5 to part 679. The EM system aboard the vessel allows the EM review service provider to monitor whether nonpelagic gear is deployed in these areas. Vessels will indicate in their VMP which net reel contains the nonpelagic trawl gear. NMFS used this approach during the EFP, during which vessels were allowed to fish in these areas with a nonpelagic trawl aboard the vessel, and detected no issues. This clarification is consistent with the Analysis and fishery operations under the EFP.

NMFS revised § 679.28(g)(5) added the words “up to” to state that the CMCP may be approved for up to 1 year. This change was made to reflect the current state of CMCPs, which may be temporarily approved for less than one year while required changes are being made.

NMFS revised § 679.28(g)(7)(ix)(C) to include the phrase “The workspace must include flooring that prevents slipping and drains well, adequate lighting, and a hose that supplies fresh or sea water to the observer.” This phrase was previously required under § 679.28(d)(6) and was inadvertently removed in the proposed rule.

NMFS revised § 679.28(g)(7)(x)(G) to read, “Estimated start time of each vessel offload;” to clarify intent. This regulation is intended to provide observers with the anticipated start time for each trawl EM category offload.

At § 679.28(g)(9)(ii)(D), NMFS revised wording for consistency with the changes at § 679.7(j)(2)(ii)(D) and (E).

As explained in more detail in response to comment 10, NMFS added § 679.28(g)(9)(ii)(E), which states “Regarding the deliveries of pollock from the Gulf of Alaska or Aleutian Islands, the observer(s) must be given the opportunity to complete the count of salmon and the collection of scientific data or biological samples from all offloads selected for monitoring. When the observer(s) has or have completed all counting and sampling duties for the offload, plant personnel must remove the salmon in the presence of the observer(s) from the salmon storage container and location where salmon are counted and biological samples or scientific data are collected.” This revision will not affect salmon accounting in the GOA and AI pollock fisheries and is consistent with the Analysis and fishery operations under the EFP.

At § 679.51(g)(1)(i)(A)( 1 ) and ( 2 ), NMFS removed the word “targeting” and added in its place the phrase “directed fishing for” to clarify that vessels must be “directed fishing,” as defined at § 679.2, for pollock to operate in the trawl EM category.

At § 679.51(g)(1)(v)(B), NMFS added wording to clarify that vessels that are not operating in the trawl EM category on a particular fishing trip will remain subject to observer coverage as specified at § 679.51(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i).

At § 679.51(g)(3)(iv), NMFS removed the phrase “conducted under paragraph (g)(5) of this section” and added the phrase “trawl EM category” to clarify that all vessels must comply with their VMP regardless of their coverage category.

At § 679.52(d)(3)(ii), and as explained in more detail in response to comment 13, NMFS added the phrase “At any time after initial approval of the EM hardware service provider permit, this testing requirement must be applied to and met by any EM system requiring new, or significantly updated, hardware or software is installed onboard a vessel.” to clarify that approval of one system does not transfer to significant variations of that system or to a new EM system.

At § 679.52(d)(3)(iv), NMFS added the phrase “if a corporation” to be consistent with (d)(3)(v).

At § 679.52(d)(3)(vii), NMFS added the phrase “to do so” for additional clarity.

At § 679.56(a)(4)(ii), NMFS removed the phrase “make electronic payment to NMFS”, leaving the words “submit payment.” This is to clarify that the method of payment may change as technology advances.

NMFS revised wording at § 679.57(b)(4)(ii), (f)(2)(iii)(A), and (e)(3)(i) for consistency replacing the words “retain” and “land” with “harvesting.” At § 679.57(b)(4)(ii) and (f)(2)(iii)(A), NMFS also replaced the word “ensure” with “discourage” to better clarify the intent of incentive measures.

As explained in more detail in response to comment 18, NMFS added § 679.57(f)(2)(iii)(E), which states “Identification of, and the TEM IPA's response to, vessels directed fishing in conflict with harvest specifications or directed fishing for Steller Sea Lion forage species within closed Steller Sea Lion protection areas.”

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides the specific authority for implementing this action. Pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d), this action is necessary to carry out amendment 126 to the BSAI FMP, amendment 114 to the GOA FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law and to revise regulations associated with the Observer Program for clarity and technical consistency. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

A Regulatory Impact Review was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). The Council recommended and NMFS approved these regulations based on those measures that maximize net benefits to the Nation.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This final rule revises existing collection-of information requirements for OMB Control Numbers 0648-0213 (Alaska Region Logbook and Activity Family of Forms); 0648-0330 (NMFS Alaska Region Scale and Catch Weighing Requirements); 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System); and 0648-0711 (Alaska Cost Recovery and Fee Programs) and revises and extends 0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program). Because of a concurrent action for 0648-0213, the revision to that collection of information for this final rule has been assigned a temporary control number, OMB Control Number 0648-0819, that will later be merged into 0648-0213. OMB Control Numbers 0648-0812 (Electronic Logbook: Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative Program Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Ft. LOA) and 0648-0815 (Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Pot Gear Catcher/Processor Monitoring) are being merged into 0648-0515 and 0648-0318, respectively, and 0648-0812 and 0648-0815 will be discontinued upon issuance of this final rule. The public reporting burden estimates provided below for the collections of information include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

This final rule revises the collection of information under OMB Control Number 0648-0213, associated with paper logbooks. Due to a concurrent action for that collection, the collection-of-information requirements have been assigned a temporary control number, OMB Control Number 0648-0819, that will later be merged into OMB Control Number 0648-0213. This final rule requires logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use either NMFS-approved paper logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213) or electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515). Catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain logbooks. Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that are not currently required to submit a logbook will need to begin doing so to participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this final rule will increase the number of vessels required to submit a logbook. The temporary control number covers the revisions necessary to 0648-0213 for the catcher vessels that choose to submit paper logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 18 minutes for the Catcher Vessel Trawl Daily Fishing Logbook.

The owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel is required to use ODDS to request placement in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category are required to log all fishing trips in ODDS. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 5 minutes to submit the request through ODDS and 15 minutes to log a fishing trip in ODDS.

The vessel owner or operator of a catcher vessel or tender vessel in the trawl EM category is required to submit a VMP to NMFS. The public reporting burden per response for the VMP is estimated to average 48 hours.

Vessel operators in the trawl EM category are required to submit EM data and associated documentation identified in their vessel's VMP to NMFS. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 hour.

Vessels in the trawl EM category are required to communicate catch information to the shoreside processor or stationary floating processor that would be receiving the catch. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 5 minutes for the landing notice for EM pollock trawl offloads.

A catcher vessel owner or operator is required to be a party of a TEM IPA to be approved for the trawl EM partial coverage category. The TEM IPA representative submits the final TEM IPA to NMFS. The representative of each approved TEM IPA is required to submit a written annual report to the Council. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 40 hours for the TEM IPA and 40 hours for the TEM IPA annual report.

Prospective EM hardware service providers need to apply, and be approved, for an EM hardware service provider permit. The public reporting burden to obtain this permit is estimated to average 8 hours.

An administrative appeal may be submitted if NMFS issues an IAD to deny a request to place a vessel in the trawl EM category, an IAD to disapprove a final TEM IPA, or an IAD for expiration of an EM hardware services provider permit. The public reporting burden per response for an administrative appeal is estimated to average 4 hours.

The submission time of the observer deployment/logistics report is changed to within 24 hours of the observer assignment or daily by 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, each business day with regard to each observer. Fax is removed as a submission method for this report, and this final rule will continue to allow submission by email or any other methods specified by NMFS. This report is no longer required to include the location of any observer employed by the observer provider who is not assigned to a vessel, shoreside processor, or stationary floating processor. These changes are not expected to change the average response time for this report. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 7 minutes.

This final rule allows for electronic submission of the reports that are submitted by an observer provider and used by NMFS to monitor and enforce standards of observer conduct and identify problems on deployments that may compromise the observer's health or well-being. This final rule also requires the provider's responses to the violation in the report. These changes are not expected to change the average response time for these reports. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 2 hours.

This final rule removes fax as an electronic communication method and continues to allow submission by email or other methods specified by NMFS for other observer provider responsibilities. The public reporting burden per response to these requirements is estimated to average 60 hours for the observer provider permit application; 8 hours for college transcripts; 1 hour for observer training registration; 7 minutes each for observer briefing registration and projected observer assignments; 5 minutes each for physical examination verification and updates to observer provider information; 12 minutes for certificates of insurance; and 30 minutes each for observer debriefing registration, observer provider contracts, and observer provider invoices.

The information collection for 0648-0330 is revised because this final rule requires all shoreside processors and stationary floating processors receiving pollock from vessels in the trawl EM category to have NMFS-approved CMCPs in place before receiving deliveries from catcher vessels or tender vessels in the trawl EM category. Some processors that do not currently submit a CMCP will need to begin doing so; therefore, this requirement will increase the number of respondents that submit a CMCP. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 40 hours for the new participants required to submit a CMCP and initially in the first 2 years after implementation for existing CMCPs, but in the following years the burden will be reduced.

The information collection for 0648-0515 is revised due to this final rule. Additionally, OMB Control Number 0648-0812 is being merged into 0648-0515 and will be discontinued upon issuance of this final rule. OMB Control Number 0648-0812 was established as a temporary collection (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023) because 0648-0515 was being revised by concurrent actions and was intended to be merged into 0648-0515 following the completion of those actions. This final rule requires logbooks to be submitted by all catcher vessels in the trawl EM category. Catcher vessels in the trawl EM category may use either NMFS-approved electronic logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0515) or paper logbooks (OMB Control Number 0648-0213). Catcher vessels greater than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA already are required to maintain logbooks. Some catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that are not currently required to submit a logbook will need to begin doing so to participate in the trawl EM category; therefore, this final rule will increase the number of vessels required to submit a logbook. The revision to this collection of information due to the rule adds the catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA that choose to submit electronic logbooks. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 15 minutes per day into the Catcher Vessel Electronic Logbook.

The information collection for 0648-0711 is revised because this final rule requires the owner of a catcher vessel in the full coverage trawl EM category to submit the new full coverage trawl EM fee. The public reporting burden per response is estimated to average 1 minute for the fee payment.

We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments are recommendations for this information collection should be submitted at the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find these particular information collections by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issues a temporary scheduling order  1 (in the form of a temporary amendment) to add the following two substances, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible, to schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA):

• N- ethyl-2-(2-(4-isopropoxybenzyl)-5-nitro-1 H -benzimidazol-1-yl)ethan-1-amine (commonly known as N -desethyl isotonitazene), and

• 2-(4-ethoxybenzyl)-5-nitro-1-(2-(piperidin-1-yl)ethyl)-1 H -benzimidazole (commonly known as either N -piperidinyl etonitazene or etonitazepipne).

Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), the Attorney General, as delegated to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator) pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100, has the authority to temporarily place a substance in schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the evaluation requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b), if the Administrator finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 2 In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) while the substance is temporarily controlled under section 811(h), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 3

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355. 4

The CSA requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of an intent to place a substance in schedule I of the CSA temporarily ( i.e., to issue a temporary scheduling order). 5 The Administrator transmitted the required notice to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS (Assistant Secretary), 6 by letter dated April 3, 2023, regarding N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated May 11, 2023, and advised that based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no investigational new drug applications (IND) or approved new drug applications (NDA) for N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene. The Assistant Secretary also stated that HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of these substances in schedule I. N -Desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene currently are not listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals under 21 U.S.C. 355 are in effect for these substances.

DEA has taken into consideration the Assistant Secretary's comments as required by subsection 811(h)(4). DEA has found the control of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

As required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1)(A), DEA published a notice of intent (NOI) to temporarily schedule N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene on October 25, 2023. 7 That NOI discussed findings from DEA's three-factor analysis dated January 2023, which DEA made available on www.regulations.gov.

To find that temporarily placing a substance in schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator must consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): the substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 8 Consideration of these factors includes any information indicating actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution of these substances. 9

Substances meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 10 Substances in schedule I have high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 11

The continued encounter of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) on the recreational drug market poses a threat to public safety. Following the class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, 12 there has been an increase in the emergence of synthetic opioids that are not structurally related to fentanyl. Beginning in 2019, a new class of synthetic opioids known as benzimidazole-opioids, commonly referred to as “nitazenes,” emerged on the recreational drug market. This class of substances was first synthesized in the 1950s by CIBA Aktiengesellschaft in Switzerland, and it has a similar pharmacological profile to fentanyl, morphine, and other mu-opioid receptor agonists. Between August 2020 and April 2022, DEA temporarily controlled eight benzimidazole-opioids because they posed a threat to public safety. 13

Recently, additional benzimidazole-opioids have been identified within the rapidly expanding class of “nitazene” compounds on the recreational drug market. N -Desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene are some of the recently encountered “nitazene” synthetic opioids identified on the illicit drug market.

The continued trafficking and identification of benzimidazole-opioids in toxicology cases pose a significant threat to public health and safety. Adverse health effects associated with the misuse and abuse of synthetic opioids have led to devastating consequences including death. Preclinical pharmacology data demonstrate that N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene have pharmacological profiles similar to those of the potent benzimidazole-opioids etonitazene and isotonitazene, schedule I opioid substances. 14 N -Desethyl isotonitazene, an active metabolite of isotonitazene, has been positively identified in at least ten toxicology cases. 15 N -Piperidinyl etonitazene has been positively identified in at least three toxicology cases. 16 As the United States continues to experience a high number of opioid-involved overdoses and mortalities, the introduction of new designer opioids further exacerbates the current opioid epidemic.

Available data and information for N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene, summarized below, indicate that these substances have high potentials for abuse, no currently accepted medical uses in treatment in the United States, 17 and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. N -Desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene have been positively identified toxicology cases. As the United States continues to experience a high number of opioid-involved overdoses and mortalities, the introduction of new designer opioids further exacerbates the current opioid epidemic Thus, the Administrator concludes that N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene meet the statutory requirements to be temporarily placed in schedule I under the CSA. DEA's three-factor analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-1143.

In the late 1950s, pharmaceutical research laboratories of the Swiss chemical company CIBA Aktiengesellschaft synthesized a group of structurally unique benzimidazole derivatives with analgesic properties; however, the research effort did not produce any medically approved analgesic products. These benzimidazole derivatives include schedule I substances, such as synthetic opioids clonitazene, etonitazene, and isotonitazene.

Since 2019, there has been an emergence of nitazene compounds on the illicit drug market, which have been positively identified in numerous cases of fatal overdose events. In August 2020, isotonitazene was placed in schedule I of the CSA (85 FR 51342). Subsequently, seven additional benzimidazole-opioids  18 have been placed in schedule I of the CSA.

Recently, two additional benzimidazole-opioids have emerged on the illicit drug market. Law enforcement officers have encountered N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in several solid forms ( e.g., powder and tablets). These substances are not approved pharmaceutical products and are not approved for medical use anywhere in the world. The Assistant Secretary in a letter to DEA dated May 11, 2023, stated that there are no FDA-approved NDAs or INDs for N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in the United States. There are no legitimate channels for these substances as marketed drug products.

The appearance of benzimidazole-opioids on the illicit drug market is similar to other designer opioid drugs that are trafficked for their psychoactive effects. These substances are likely to be abused in the same manner as schedule I opioids, such as etonitazene, isotonitazene, and heroin.

In 2022, N -desethyl isotonitazene was identified in counterfeit tablets in the United States and United Kingdom. Recent reporting by Center for Forensic Science Research and Education (CFSRE) indicates that in the United States, N -desethyl isotonitazene was identified in counterfeit oxycodone round blue tablets in Florida. Further, in December 2022, N -desethyl isotonitazene was co-identified in “dope” samples containing xylazine, fentanyl, para -fluorofentanyl, and designer benzodiazepines ( e.g., flubromazepam and bromazolam). 19

In 2021, N -piperidinyl etonitazene emerged on the illicit synthetic drug market, as evidenced by its identification in toxicological analysis of biological samples. 20 In addition, there have been encounters of N -piperidinyl etonitazene in Europe. As reported in January 2022 by the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the European Union Early Warning System Network identified N -piperidinyl etonitazene in Germany in October 2021. As of January 23, 2023, a total of four European countries have reported identifications of N -piperidinyl etonitazene in powder form to the EMCDDA. 21

N -Desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene, similar to etonitazene and isotonitazene (schedule I substances), have been described as potent synthetic opioids, and evidence suggests they are abused for their opioidergic effects. The abuse of these benzimidazole-opioids, similar to other synthetic opioids, has resulted in serious adverse health effects. Between October 2019 and January 2020, N -desethyl isotonitazene was positively identified as a metabolite of isotonitazene in 13 postmortem samples and 64 driving-under-the-influence-of-drugs (DUID) in the United States. However, beginning in 2023, N -desethyl isotonitazene has been identified in 10 toxicology cases. 22 The pharmacological profile of N -desethyl isotonitazene demonstrates it is a highly potent synthetic opioid similar to etonitazene, isotonitazene, and fentanyl. As such, the identification of this substance as a parent drug in the recreational drug market is worrisome.

Data from law enforcement suggest that N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene are being abused in the United States as recreational drugs. 23 Since 2022, there have been 14 reports to DEA's National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)-Drug  24 (Federal, State, and local laboratories) database pertaining to the trafficking, distribution, and abuse of N -desethyl isotonitazene (n = 5) and N -piperidinyl etonitazene (n = 9). These five encounters of N -desethyl isotonitazene were reported to NFLIS-Drug from Pennsylvania (2), Florida (2) and Kansas (1). Encounters of N -piperidinyl etonitazene occurred in Tennessee (8) and Pennsylvania (1).

Based on information collected from NFLIS-Drug, N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene were identified in tablet form or as residue. Reporting from CFSRE show that N -desethyl isotonitazene was identified in a counterfeit oxycodone tablet in Florida, 25 suggesting that it might be present as a substitute for heroin or fentanyl and likely abused in the same manner as either of those substances.

The population likely to be harmed by these benzimidazole-opioids appears to be the same as that harmed by prescription opioid analgesics, fentanyl, and other synthetic drugs. 26 This is evidenced by the types of other drugs co-identified in biological samples and law enforcement reports. Law enforcement and toxicology reports demonstrate that N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene are being illicitly distributed and abused. Because users of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene are likely to obtain these substances through unregulated sources, the identity, purity, and quantity of these substances are uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to the end user. Individuals who initiate ( i.e., use a drug for the first time) use of these benzimidazole-opioids are likely to be at risk of developing substance use disorder, overdose, and/or death, similar to that of other opioid analgesics ( e.g., fentanyl, morphine, etc.).

The increase in opioid overdose deaths in the United States has been exacerbated recently by the availability of potent synthetic opioids on the illicit drug market. Data obtained from pre-clinical studies demonstrate that N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene exhibit pharmacological profiles similar to that of etonitazene, isotonitazene, and other mu-opioid receptor agonists. 27 These two benzimidazole-opioids bind to and act as an agonist at the mu-opioid receptors. It is well established that substances that act as mu-opioid receptor agonists have a high potential for addiction and can induce dose-dependent respiratory depression.

Consistent with any mu-opioid receptor agonist, the potential health and safety risks for users of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene are high. N -Desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene have been positively identified in toxicology cases. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of mu-opioid receptor agonists are well established. These risks include large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.

N -Piperidinyl etonitazene was detected in suspected opioid overdose cases in three patients from New Jersey over a period of three days in July 2021. Of those patients, two reported the use of cocaine; one reported the use of heroin and alprazolam. Similarly, according to a 2021 CFSRE report, N -piperidinyl etonitazene was co-identified with fentanyl in two cases and para -fluorofentanyl in one other case. 28

The pharmacological profile of this substance demonstrates that it is a highly potent synthetic opioid similar to etonitazene, isotonitazene, and fentanyl. As such, the identification of this substance as a parent drug in the recreational drug market is worrisome.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene pose imminent hazards to public safety. DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these substances in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, found in 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I must have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene indicate that these substances meet the three statutory criteria.

As required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator transmitted to the Assistant Secretary, via letter dated April 3, 2023, notice of her intent to place N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in schedule I on a temporary basis. HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of these substances in schedule I. DEA subsequently published a NOI in the Federal Register on October 25, 2023. 29

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (3), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for her determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of these substances in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

This temporary placement of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in schedule I of the CSA will take effect on the date the order is published in the Federal Register and remain in effect for two years, with a possible extension of one year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 30

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling drugs or other substances. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 31 The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties appropriate process and the government any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 32 Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 33

Upon the effective date of this temporary order, N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene will be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, possession of, and engagement in research and conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, schedule I controlled substances, including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (possesses, manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with) or desires to handle, N -desethyl isotonitazene or N -piperidinyl etonitazene must be registered with DEA to conduct such activities, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312, as of July 29, 2024. Any person who thereafter handles N -desethyl isotonitazene or N -piperidinyl etonitazene and is not registered with DEA must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene as of July 29, 2024, unless DEA has approved that application for registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312. Retail sales of schedule I controlled substances to the general public are not allowed under the CSA. Possession of any quantity of these substances in a manner not authorized by the CSA on or after July 29, 2024 is unlawful, and those in possession of any quantity of these substances may be subject to prosecution pursuant to the CSA.

2. Disposal of stocks. Any person who does not desire or is unable to obtain a schedule I registration to handle N -desethyl isotonitazene or N -piperidinyl etonitazene must surrender all currently held quantities of these substances.

3. Security. N -Desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene are subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93, as of July 29, 2024.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e) and 21 CFR part 1302. Current DEA registrants will have 30 calendar days from July 29, 2024 to comply with all labeling and packaging requirements.

5. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of N -desethyl isotonitazene or N -piperidinyl etonitazene on the effective date of this order must take an inventory of all stocks of these substances on hand pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11. Current DEA registrants will have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to comply with all inventory requirements. After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene) on hand on a biennial basis pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

6. Records. All DEA registrants must maintain records with respect to N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e) and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304, 1312, and 1317, and section 1307.11. Current DEA registrants authorized to handle these two substances shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to comply with all recordkeeping requirements.

7. Reports. All DEA registrants must submit reports with respect to N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304, 1312, and 1317, and sections 1301.74(c) and 1301.76(b), as of July 29, 2024. Manufacturers and distributors must also submit reports regarding these substances to the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

8. Order Forms. All DEA registrants who distribute N -desethyl isotonitazene or N -piperidinyl etonitazene must comply with order form requirements pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1305 as of July 29, 2024.

9. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312 as of July 29, 2024.

10. Quota. Only DEA-registered manufacturers may manufacture N -desethyl isotonitazene and N -piperidinyl etonitazene in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303, as of July 29, 2024.

11. Liability. Any activity involving N -desethyl isotonitazene or N -piperidinyl etonitazene not authorized by or in violation of the CSA, occurring as of July 29, 2024, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

The CSA provides for expedited temporary scheduling actions where necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), the Administrator, as delegated by the Attorney General, may, by order, temporarily place substances in schedule I. Such orders may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from: (1) The publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intent to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary, as delegated by the Secretary of HHS. 34

Inasmuch as section 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order (as distinct from a rule) and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, DEA believes the notice-and-comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, which are applicable to rulemaking, do not apply to this temporary scheduling order. The APA expressly differentiates between orders and rules, as it defines an “order” to mean a “final disposition, whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form, of an agency in a matter other than rule making. ” 5 U.S.C. 551(6) (emphasis added). This contrasts with permanent scheduling actions, which are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” and final decisions that conclude the scheduling process and are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 877. The specific language chosen by Congress indicates its intent that DEA issue orders instead of proceeding by rulemaking when temporarily scheduling substances. Given that Congress specifically requires the Administrator (as delegated by the Attorney General) to follow rulemaking procedures for other kinds of scheduling actions, see 21 U.S.C. 811(a), it is noteworthy that, in section 811(h)(1), Congress authorized the issuance of temporary scheduling actions by order rather than by rule.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this action is subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo its notice-and-comment requirements, as any further delays in the process for issuing temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest given the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Although DEA believes this temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator took into consideration comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to the notices that DEA transmitted to the Assistant Secretary pursuant to such subsection.

Further, DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, in this instance, since DEA believes this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule,” it is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act when issuing this temporary action.

In accordance with the principles of Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563, and 14094, this action is not a significant regulatory action. E.O. 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866, sec. 3(f), as amended by E.O. 14094, sec. 1(b), provides the definition of a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because this is not a rulemaking action, this is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

This action 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 E.O. 13132, it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 16, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set out above, DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

The similar rule published at 89 FR 53491 on June 27, 2024. The Coast Guard is issuing this interim temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. The notice allowing the demolition project to proceed and providing updated timelines for the project was only recently finalized and provided to the Coast Guard, which did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before ethe existing regulation expires. Timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with demolition of the lock and dam, which involves the use of explosives. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish the safety zone to protect the safety of the waterway users, demolition crew, other personnel associated with the project, and the public. A delay of the project to accommodate a full notice and comment period would delay necessary operations, result in increased costs, and delay the completion date of the demolition project and subsequent opening of the navigation channel. We must establish this safety zone by August 1, 2024, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule is impracticable and contrary to public interest because timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the demolition of the lock and dam starting August 1, 2024.

Although this regulation is published as an interim rule without prior notice, public comment is nevertheless desirable to ensure that the regulation is both workable and reasonable. Accordingly, persons wishing to comment may do so by submitting written comments as set out under ADDRESSES in this preamble. Commenters should include their names and addresses, identify the docket number for the regulation, and give reasons for their comments. If the Coast Guard determines that changes to the temporary interim rule are necessary, we will publish a temporary final rule or other appropriate document.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with this lock and dam demolition will be a safety concern for anyone on the Monongahela River within mile marker 23.5 through 24.5. The use of explosives and other activities involved in demolishing the lock and dam involve inherent risk. To minimize risk to personnel, vessels, property, and the marine environment, no vessel may moor, anchor, transit, or otherwise be present in the designated safety zone at any time during the periods of enforcement unless receiving prior permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

This temporary interim rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the lock and dam demolition.

This temporary interim rule establishes a safety zone from August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 23.5 and mile marker 24.5 on the Monongahela River in Elizabeth, PA. This rule will prohibit all persons and vessel traffic from the safety zone unless an exception is authorized by the COTP or their designated representative. The COTP will only enforce the safety zone on one or two days per week until December 31, 2024. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled initial demolition of Locks and Dam No. 3 at mile marker 23.8 on the Monongahela River.

The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register , the Local Notice to Marines, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any enforcement.

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.

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone impacts only a one mile stretch of the Monongahela River starting August 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. The safety zone will be enforced only during demolition activities, which are anticipated to take place one to two days per week, each week throughout the period. Vessel traffic will be permitted to transit the area at other times. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), via VHF-FM marine channel 13 or 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP to transit the zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that impacts only a one mile stretch of the Monongahela River starting July 8, 2024, at 4 a.m., through July 31, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2024-0658 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in the docket. To view documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of this rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more information about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records Notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

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

On June 6, 2018, section 152 of Public Law 115-182, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018 (the MISSION Act), amended title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) by adding a new section 1703E. This new section established the Center for Innovation for Care and Payment (the Center) and authorized the conduct of pilot programs designed to develop innovative approaches to testing payment and care models to reduce expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care furnished by VA.

On October 25, 2019, VA published a final rule implementing section 1703E in title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 17.450. See 84 Federal Register (FR) 57327. This new regulation, which became effective on November 25, 2019, established the parameters for the Center in its conduct of pilot programs. These parameters included, but were not limited to, geographic location decisions, limitations on the number of pilot programs to be operated at the same time, VA's evaluation and reporting on the pilot programs, and when VA may expand, modify, and terminate pilot programs.

As explained in more detail below, we now amend § 17.450 by making several technical revisions. VA is not making any substantive edits to the content of § 17.450.

Current paragraph (a) of § 17.450 sets forth the purpose and organization of the Center. Paragraph (a)(2) provides that the Center will not operate within any specific administration within VA but rather will operate in VA's corporate portfolio, to ensure the limited number of concurrent pilot programs under § 17.450 are not redundant of or conflicted by ongoing innovation efforts within any specific administration. We explained in the proposed rule for § 17.450 that the Center will be operationally independent from any of VA's three administrations and will be responsible for collaborating across VA to develop and implement pilot programs under this section. 84 FR 36508 (July 29, 2019). As further explained in proposed paragraphs (a)(2) and (3), being operationally independent referred to the decision-making authority of the Center regarding the strategic, procedural, and tactical aspects of managing the pilot programs under this section. Id. However, we received public comments indicating that the proposed language was unclear. See 84 FR 57328-57329 (October 25, 2019). We thus eliminated the reference to and definition of operational independence in proposed paragraph (a)(2) and redesignated paragraph (a)(3) to paragraph (a)(2), which is the language in current 38 CFR 17.450(a)(2). We further clarified in the final rule that the Center is part of VA and acts at the direction of the Secretary, so it is not “independent” from VA. 84 FR 57329.

Consistent with paragraph (a)(2), the Center had operated under VA's Office of Enterprise Integration (OEI), which is a VA corporate level office, since November 25, 2019.

However, since April 5, 2021, the Center has operated under the Office of Discovery, Education, and Affiliate Networks (DEAN) under the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The Center moved from OEI to DEAN to align these pilot programs with other established, complementary innovation programs that are health-care focused initiatives within VHA and to enable more efficient and effective oversight and execution of all pilot programming which enhances care and service delivery for veterans. As a result, this move has facilitated more efficient daily operations, while continuing to maintain Department-wide connections across VA. More specifically, this move has allowed the Center to leverage the well-established practices of advancing innovation through the VA innovation lifecycle developed and maintained by DEAN and the Office of Healthcare Innovation and Learning (HIL) while still permitting VA to ensure that the pilots managed by the Center are not redundant of or conflict with ongoing innovation efforts within VA; DEAN and HIL have several existing partnerships with programs across VA and have established connections to ensure feedback is considered and integrated into pilot-programming decision-making. This has been achieved through formal governance and through structured collaborations with programs across VA's three administrations (that is, health, benefits, and memorial affairs). This facilitates cross-agency communication, prevents redundant or conflicting efforts, and ensures pilots drive transformational change across VA.

Because the organizational alignment of the Center has moved from VA's corporate portfolio to VHA, we now amend § 17.450(a)(2) to reflect that change. However, in order to avoid amending § 17.450(a)(2) in the future in the event that the name of the office under which the Center will operate changes, we will not add the name of DEAN and will instead state in § 17.450(a)(2) that the Center for Innovation for Care and Payment will operate within the Veterans Health Administration. We are also making a technical edit to the last part of § 17.450(a)(2), which currently states in part that concurrent pilot programs under § 17.450 are not redundant of or conflicted by ongoing innovation efforts within any specific administration. We are removing the phrase “conflicted by” and replacing it with “conflicting with” for clarity. This edit will not change the meaning of the text.

Current § 17.450(g) establishes evaluation and reporting provisions related to the Center. This paragraph states that VA will evaluate each pilot program operated under this section and report its findings. Such evaluations may be based on quantitative data, qualitative data, or both; and whenever appropriate, evaluations will include a survey of participants or beneficiaries to determine their satisfaction with the pilot program. This paragraph further states that VA will make the evaluation results available to the public on the VA Innovation Center website on the schedule identified in VA's proposal for the pilot program. As part of this rulemaking, we are revising the last sentence of paragraph (g) to state that VA will make the evaluation results available to the public on a VA website on the schedule identified in VA's proposal for the pilot program. We reference a VA website instead of the VA Innovation Center website because the specific name of the website and sub-pages for pilot programs vary, and referencing a VA website provides consistency and avoids the potential need for additional regulatory updates; we believe that the broader identification of a VA website in the regulation will allow VA to more accurately and consistently identify the location of the website where the evaluation results for the relevant pilot program will be published. The website will still be identified on the schedule in the proposal for such pilot program.

This final rule will neither amend the substantive content of the regulations cited nor have a substantive impact on the public. We are merely providing technical revisions to revise the organizational alignment of the Center for Innovation for Care and Payment and to revise the location of the website where evaluation results are posted for public review for the pilot programs. Consequently, this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice pursuant to section 553(b)(A) in Title 5 of United States Code.

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not satisfying the criteria under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Assistance Listing numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are as follows: 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; and 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care.

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 23, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Effective November 7, 2022 the EPA reclassified the Greater Connecticut area under the CAA from “Marginal” to “Moderate” for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 2022). 1 This area is herein referred to as the Greater Connecticut 2015 NAAQS nonattainment area. Classification of this area as a Moderate ozone nonattainment area established a requirement that the area attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years from the date of the original designation for the area, i.e., by August 3, 2024. On June 13, 2024, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection requested that the EPA reclassify the Greater Connecticut 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious if EPA either fails to issue a decision on Connecticut's exceptional events demonstration in a timely manner or EPA determines that certain data requested for exclusion does not qualify for exclusion under the Exceptional Events rule. 2 In accordance with Connecticut's June 13, 2024 letter, we are reclassifying the Greater Connecticut 2015 NAAQS nonattainment area to Serious as the State requested.

We are approving Connecticut's reclassification request under section 181(b)(3) of the Act, which provides for “voluntary reclassification.” Because the plain language of CAA section 181(b)(3) mandates that we approve such a request, the EPA is granting Connecticut's request for voluntary reclassification under section 181(b)(3) for the Greater Connecticut NAAQS nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and the EPA is reclassifying the area from Moderate to Serious. Because of this action, the Greater Connecticut 2015 NAAQS nonattainment area must now attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than nine years from the date of the initial designation as nonattainment, i.e., by August 3, 2027. We will propose a schedule for required plan submittals for the Greater Connecticut 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area under the new classification in a separate action.

Within the geographic boundaries of the Greater Connecticut 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area Indian country exists under the jurisdiction of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan Indian Tribe. Because the State of Connecticut does not have jurisdiction over Indian country located within its borders, Connecticut's request to reclassify the Greater Connecticut 2015 NAAQS nonattainment area does not apply to this area of Indian country. The EPA implements certain Federal CAA programs, including reclassifications, in Indian country consistent with our discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA. The EPA has not received a reclassification request from any tribe with jurisdiction within the Greater Connecticut 2015 NAAQS nonattainment area. In this action, we are adding regulatory text to 40 CFR part 81 to indicate that the area under the jurisdiction of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation and Mohegan Indian Tribe will retain the Moderate classification and the areas under the jurisdiction of the states will be reclassified as Serious.

The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” The EPA has determined that public notice and comment for this action is unnecessary because our action to approve voluntary reclassification requests under CAA section 181(b)(3) is nondiscretionary both in its issuance and in its content. As such, notice and comment rulemaking procedures would serve no useful purpose.

The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this reclassification to become effective on the date of publication. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date of less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. The schedule for required plan submittals for the Greater Connecticut 2015 NAAQS nonattainment area under the new classification will be proposed in a separate action. For this reason, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this reclassification to become effective on the date of publication.

Under the Clean Air Act this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies. Connecticut did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 27, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR Chapter 1 as set forth below:

This final rule amends the DFARS to make needed editorial changes to update the name of the Office of the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting.

Therefore, the Defense Acquisition Regulations System amends 48 CFR parts 201, 202, 204, 206, 209, 215, 217, 225, 230, 232, 242, 243, 245, 249, and 252 as follows:

NHTSA has identified a few minor errors in the final rule establishing new CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks and new fuel efficiency standards for HDPUVs. Specifically, NHTSA has identified three errors in the final rule related to the minimum domestic passenger car standards (MDPCS) as well as one incorrect statutory citation. The final rule will continue to be effective on August 23, 2024.

Regarding the MDPCS, in the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA explained that, to account for recent projection errors as a part of estimating the total passenger car fleet fuel economy, NHTSA was retaining the 1.9 percent adjustment that was first used for the MDPCS in the 2020 final rule. 1 However, the MDPCS included in the June 24, 2024 final rule were not calculated using an adjusted projected total passenger car fleet fuel economy. Instead, the MDPCS included in the final rule were calculated at 92 percent of the unadjusted projected fuel economy. To correct this oversight, NHTSA is issuing this notice to correct the inconsistency in the MDPCS listed in two tables in the preamble of the final rule as well as in the regulatory text. These changes properly reflect the agency's original intent as described in the final rule, and do not change the agency's intent regarding manufacturers' compliance obligations.

NHTSA was also made aware of an error on page 52834 in the issue of June 24, 2024. Specifically, there is a sentence that explains that the prohibition on considering the fuel economy of battery electric vehicles “applies only when NHTSA is making decisions about whether CAFE standards are maximum feasible under 32902(c).” However, the correct statutory provision that should be referenced is 32902(f) because the rule issues new CAFE standards and does not amend existing standards.

In final rule FR Doc. 2024-12864, beginning on page 52540 in the issue of June 24, 2024, make the following corrections, in the Supplementary Information section.

1. On page 52548, the existing Table I-3 is corrected as follows:

2. On page 52568, the existing Table II-1 is corrected as follows:

3. On page 52834, in the first and second columns, the sentence “Which is to say, for purposes of this rulemaking, the prohibition applies only when NHTSA is making decisions about whether the CAFE standards are maximum feasible under 32902(c).” is corrected to read “Which is to say, for purposes of this rulemaking, the prohibition applies only when NHTSA is making decisions about whether the CAFE standards are maximum feasible under 32902(f).”

In final rule FR Doc. 2024-12864, beginning on page 52540 in the issue of June 24, 2024, make the following corrections, in the Regulatory Text section.

On May 10, 2024, NMFS published a final rule implementing fishing periods ( i.e., season dates) and fishing period limits ( i.e., catch limits), by vessel size class, for the IPHC Area 2A Pacific halibut non-tribal directed commercial fishery that operates south of Point Chehalis, WA (lat. 46°53.30′ N) (89 FR 40417). The Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery allocation is 249,338 pounds (113 mt), net weight ( i.e., the weight of Pacific halibut that is without gills and entrails, head-off, washed, and without ice and slime) (89 FR 19275, March 18, 2024).

The initial fishing periods occurred on June 25-27 and July 9-11, 2024, with fishing period limits ranging from 1,800 pounds to 4,500 pounds (0.816 mt to 2.041 mt), varied by vessel size class. Landings information to date indicates that sufficient allocation remains to warrant an additional fishing period. Approximately 182,778 pounds (82.9 mt), net weight, have been harvested of the 249,338-pound (113 mt) allocation (73 percent), leaving 66,560 pounds (30.2 mt) remaining (27 percent).

NMFS is adopting an additional fishing period not previously implemented in the final rule on May 10, 2024 (89 FR 40417), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii). Fishing period limits implemented through inseason action are equal across vessel size classes and are based on the allocation estimated to be remaining and the projected participation and catch rates in this additional fishing period.

NMFS has determined the following inseason action is necessary to meet the management objective of attaining the allocation, is not anticipated to risk exceeding the allocation, and is consistent with the inseason management provisions allowing for additional fishing periods.

This inseason action implements an additional fishing period, beginning August 6, 2024 at 8 a.m. and ending on August 8, 2024 at 6 p.m. This inseason action also implements a fishing period catch limit of 1,000 pounds (0.45 mt) per vessel, dressed weight (head-on, with ice and slime), for all vessel size classes.

Notice of this additional fishing period and fishing period limit will also be announced on the NMFS hotline at 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982. This action is taken under the regulatory authority at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The California, Oregon, and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife provided estimated harvest data to NMFS inseason. As of July 18, 2024, the Area 2A non-Tribal directed commercial fishery had caught only an estimated 73 percent of the fishery allocation. NMFS uses current fishery harvest and participation estimates, and fishing period catches from prior years, to determine if additional fishing periods are necessary to reach the allocation, and to set fishing period limits for those additional fishing periods. Given that harvest in the first two fishing periods is estimated to be well below the allocation, a third fishing period is considered necessary to maximize commercial fishing opportunity to attain the allocation. This action should be implemented as soon as possible for fishery participants to plan for the additional fishing. This fishery has historically had 2 weeks between fishing periods, or as close to 2 weeks between them as is practicable. In 2023, NMFS added a fishing period 3 weeks after the second fishing period and the Council recommended a similar timeline for 2024. The fishery may close no later than December 7, 2024 (89 FR 19275, March 18, 2024). As such, implementing this action through proposed and final rulemaking would limit the benefit this action would provide to fishery participants. Without implementation of an additional fishing period, the fishery allocation is unlikely to be reached, limiting economic benefits to the participants and not meeting the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan. It is necessary that this action be implemented in a timely manner so that planning for the additional fishing period can take place, and for business decision making by the regulated public impacted by this action, which includes commercial fishing operations and associated port businesses, among others. To ensure the regulated public is fully aware of this action, notice of this regulatory action will also be provided to fishery participants through a telephone hotline, and via email news release. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the process described in regulations at 50 CFR 300.63(e)(1)(iii) and in the final rule (89 FR 40417, May 10, 2024).

For the reasons discussed above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after date of publication, as a delay in effectiveness of this action would constrain fishing opportunity and be inconsistent with the goals of the Catch Sharing Plan, as well as potentially limit the economic opportunity intended by this rule to the associated fishing communities. This inseason action is not expected to result in exceeding the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-tribal directed commercial fishery allocation. NMFS regulations allow the Regional Administrator to add fishing periods and set fishing period limits inseason, provided that the action allows allocation objectives to be met and will not result in exceeding the catch limit for the fishery. NMFS recently received information on the progress of landings in the non-Tribal directed commercial fishery, indicating an additional fishing period with fishing period limits should be implemented in the fishery to ensure optimal and sustainable harvest of the allocation. As stated above, it is in the public interest that this action is not delayed, because a delay in the effectiveness of this additional fishing period would not allow the allocation objectives of the Area 2A Pacific halibut non-Tribal directed commercial fishery to be met.

Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2024 allocations were published on January 2, 2024 (89 FR 34).

The final rule implementing Amendment 1 to the Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2000 (65 FR 45844), provided a mechanism for transferring bluefish commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can request approval to transfer or combine bluefish commercial quota under § 648.162(e). The Regional Administrator is required to consider three criteria in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations: (1) the transfers would not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested; (2) the transfers address an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery; and (3) the transfers are consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional Administrator has determined these criteria have been met for the transfers approved in this notification.

The donor and recipient states mutually agreed to a multistate transfer divided among the recipient states proportional to their 2024 bluefish allocations (table 1) to ensure that the recipient states would not exceed their 2024 state quotas. Table 1 provides the participating states' revised bluefish quotas for 2024.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.