An agency reorganization in November 2020 realigned key functions within the agency, including: (1) creating a new Division of Data (DOD); (2) reassigning the Executive Secretariat Branch from the Office of the Executive Director (OED) to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC); and (3) renaming and realigning the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) to the Market Participants Division (MPD) and (4) moving the Office of Customer Education and Outreach (OCEO) to the Office of Public Affairs.

Technology has dramatically altered capital and commodity markets over the past few decades, and technologically induced innovations such as electronic exchanges, high-frequency trading, and exchange-traded funds have made trading faster, cheaper, more integrated, and increasingly complex. As a financial regulator in an ever-increasingly sophisticated market environment, it is becoming more and more crucial that the CFTC continue to focus on data and data reporting and invest in technologies necessary to keep pace with market innovation. Our oversight responsibilities are becoming highly data acquisitive and rely on the effective use of information, including through the use of algorithms and analytics to more effectively manage data to meet our regulatory objectives. The DoD was created to address the Commission's growing data needs and to position the agency to continue to achieve its mission in accord with new technologies.

There has been an unprecedented rise in retail futures, options and digital asset trading. As the agency evolves to address changing markets and market demographics, both the FinTech and customer protection efforts the Office of Customer Education and Outreach (OCEO) were realigned within the Office of Public Affairs.

DSIO is responsible primarily for overseeing derivatives market participants and market intermediaries, including commodity pool operators, commodity trading advisors, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, retail foreign exchange dealers, swap dealers, and major swap participants, as well as designated self-regulatory organizations. By restyling DSIO as MPD, the Division's name will more succinctly reflect the scope of its responsibility regarding the Commission registrants enumerated above.

The Commission's legal compliance groups that are responsible for records, Freedom of Information Act, Sunshine Act, privacy, and transparency were divided between the Office of the General Counsel and the Executive Secretariat Branch in the Office of the Executive Director. Moving the Executive Secretariat Branch into the Office of the General Counsel ensures consistency through streamlining all legal compliance programs into one division.

In addition to the changes required due to the realignment, the Commission proposes technical changes to ensure consistency in reference to addresses, deletes references to positions that have changed and updates the positions to align with the current Commission structure, correct typographical errors, and other technical changes.

Section 2(a)(12) of the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to govern the operating procedures and conduct of business of the Commission. The Commission is promulgating this rule to reflect changes in its administrative structure and to make conforming technical changes to its regulations.

The amendments to the Commission's regulations in this rulemaking do not establish any new substantive or legislative rules, but rather relate to the restructuring of responsibilities within the Commission, including amendments changing the names of divisions and offices that are affected by the realignment and re-delegating authority to newly formed divisions. The amendments to the Commission's regulations relate solely to agency management, organization, procedure, and practice and provide technical corrections of a minor and administrative nature, such as technical changes to ensure consistency in reference to Commission addresses, to delete references to positions that have changed and to update the positions to align with the current Commission structure, correct typographical errors, and other similar technical corrections. Therefore, this rulemaking is excepted from the public rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. 1 Additionally, an agency may issue a new rule in some circumstances without publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking with an opportunity for comment if the agency for “good cause” finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of the reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 2 As the revisions to the Commission's regulations in this rulemaking will not cause any party to undertake efforts to comply with the regulations as revised, the Commission has determined to make this rulemaking effective upon publication in the Federal Register . 3

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Commission to consider whether the regulations it adopts will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 4 The Commission is obligated to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law. 5 This rulemaking is excepted from the public rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. 6 Accordingly, the Commission is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.

The Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information contained in a rulemaking unless the information collection displays a currently valid control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Paperwork Reduction Act). 7 This final rule does not contain a “collection of information” as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act  8 and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Section 15(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act provides that, before promulgating a regulation under this Act or issuing an order, the Commission shall consider the costs and benefits of the action of the Commission. 9 These rules govern internal agency organization, procedure, and practice, and therefore the Commission finds that none of the considerations enumerated in Section 15(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act are applicable to these rules. 10

This final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act. 11

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) because it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM, consider comments, and publish a final rule before this rule needs to be in place to serve its purpose. This rule is necessary to accommodate the number of vessels expected to participate in the boat parade.

The marine event sponsor of a boat parade is expecting to draw a high concentration of vessels to the Hampton Roads Harbor area along the proposed parade route. Traditionally, the Hampton Roads Harbor area serves as a major thoroughfare for commercial traffic, naval operations, ferry routes, and several other recreational uses through the connecting waters of the James River, Elizabeth River, and Lower Chesapeake Bay. The Coast Guard is establishing a Special Local Regulation (SLR) to monitor the parade before, during, and after the event to minimize impacts on this congested waterway. We must promulgate this rule by September 14, 2024, to ensure the safety of individuals, property, and the marine environment.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because prompt action is needed to respond to the potentially significant increase in vessel traffic not local to the area and to the risks associated with large congregations of vessels navigating unfamiliar waters.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041. Captains of the Port are authorized by 33 CFR 100.35 to issue SLRs. The Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Virginia has determined that potential hazards associated with the proposed parade starting September 14, 2024, will be a safety concern for anyone within the vicinity of the parade route. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the SLR during the enforcement period of this rule.

This rule establishes an SLR from noon until 4 p.m. on September 14, 2024. The SLR will cover all navigable waters within the Elizabeth River from shoreline to shoreline beginning in the vicinity of the Craney Island Flats proceeding south through the Norfolk Harbor Reaches and ending at the Waterside District in Norfolk, Virginia, to promote safety along the “Mid-Atlantic Trump Boat Parade” route. The southern boundaries of the SLR are bound by the following fixed structures; all waters north of the I-264 Norfolk/Portsmouth (Downtown Tunnel), east of the West Norfolk Bridge and west of the Berkley Bridge. This SLR will also temporarily establish the southern area of Anchorage N (Hospital Point) as a First Amendment area, where people may lawfully assemble and convey their message in a safe manner to their intended audience, to be used at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) as a spectator area.

The duration of the SLR has been tailored to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters when the parade is scheduled to occur, while minimizing the burden on routine vessel traffic. Vessels or persons entering the SLR during the enforcement period are subject to the direction and control of the on-scene PATCOM, as designated and specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Virginia.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on two considerations. The special local regulation will be enforced for only four hours on one day. Also, persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area or anchor in the spectator area, during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP Virginia or a designated representative, who will be onsite to direct the movement of vessels such that unsafe conditions are avoided but will otherwise not interfere with commercial vessels or normal traffic in the area.

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

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

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

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

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 This rule involves an SLR lasting only 6 hours that will monitor entry to the SLR for the duration of the enforcement period to cover before, during and after the parade has concluded. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels. All non-participant vessels or persons engaged in protest activity will be directed to the southern part of Anchorage N (Hospital Point) if they wish to remain in the regulated area.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the location identified in Item No. 16 in table 1 to § 100.1101, from 7:30 a.m. until Noon on September 14, 2024, for the Swim for Special Operations Forces in San Diego Bay, CA. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waterways during the event. Our regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, § 100.1101, Item No. 16 in table 1 to § 100.1101, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Swim for Special Operations Forces, which encompasses portions of San Diego Bay. Under the provisions of § 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this document in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.703 for the Sarasota Powerboat Grand Prix/Powerboat P-1 USA race regulated area identified in Table 1 to § 100.703, Item No. 4 from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m., from September 13-15, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, Sector St. Petersburg, § 100.703, Table 1 to § 100.703, Item No. 4, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Sarasota Powerboat Grand Prix/Powerboat P-1 USA which encompasses portions of the Gulf of Mexico near Lido Beach, FL. Under the provisions of § 100.703(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any designated representative.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable to solicit and consider comments in time to publish a final rule to take effect in time for the event.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that the presence of nonparticipant vessels within the safety zone shortly before, during, and shortly after the paddleboat race is occurring will be a safety concern for participants and nonparticipants alike. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of participant and nonparticipant vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on September 15, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay, adjacent to the shoreline at Sandy Point State Park and between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the western shoreline at latitude 39°01′05.23″ N, longitude 076°23′47.93″ W; thence eastward to latitude 39°01′02.08″ N, longitude 076°22′40.24″ W; thence southeastward to eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′13.70″ N, longitude 076°19′58.40″ W; and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′17.08″ N, longitude 076°24′28.36″ W; thence southward to latitude 38°59′38.36″ N, longitude 076°23′59.67″ W; thence eastward to latitude 38°59′26.93″ N, longitude 076°23′25.53″ W; thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′40.32″ N, longitude 076°20′10.45″ W, located between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small, designated area during the event. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16 to provide information about the safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-12, as amended, does not apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's provisions do not apply here.

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 7 hours that will prohibit entry into the paddle racecourse. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

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

On July 10, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Jersey on November 23, 2021, for purposes of addressing planning elements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area (also referred to as the New York Metro Area or NYMA) and the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ-MD-DE) nonattainment area (also referred to as the Philadelphia area) (the Proposal). See 89 FR 56683. In the Proposal, the EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's reasonable further progress plan and motor vehicle emission budgets for New Jersey's portion of the NYMA for the 2008 ozone Serious classification, New Jersey's certification that the State has satisfied the requirements for an ozone nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in both nonattainment areas and statewide pursuant to requirements for States located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), New Jersey's certification that the statewide NNSR also satisfies the requirements for the State's Serious classification in the NYMA area for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, New Jersey's certification that the State has satisfied the requirements for a nonattainment emission inventory for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in both nonattainment areas, New Jersey's certification that the State has satisfied the requirements of an emission statement program for the 2008 ozone Serious classification for the NYMA nonattainment area, and New Jersey's certification that the State has satisfied the requirements for clean fuels for fleet for the NYMA.

In the Proposal, the EPA also proposed to approve portions of a comprehensive SIP revisions submitted by the State on New Jersey on January 2, 2018. And the EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's reasonable further progress plan and motor vehicle emission budgets for the 2008 ozone Moderate classification of the State's portion of the NYMA. Planning elements addressed in this final action from New Jersey's comprehensive January 2, 2018, and November 23, 2021, SIP submissions along with the respective ozone NAAQS classification and nonattainment areas are outlined in Table 1.

The specific details of New Jersey's SIP submittals and the rationale for the EPA's approval action are explained in the EPA's proposed rulemaking and are not restated in this final action. For this detailed information, the reader is referred to the Proposal.

In response to the Proposal, the EPA received no comments during the 30-day public comment period. As a result, no changes have been made to this final rule.

In this rule, the EPA is approving portions of a comprehensive SIP revision submitted by the State of New Jersey on November 23, 2021, certifying that the State has satisfied the requirements for an ozone NNSR program for the Serious classification of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, both Marginal and Moderate classifications and OTR requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, certifying that the State has satisfied the requirements for a nonattainment emission inventory for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, certifying that the State has satisfied the requirements of an emission statement program for the 2008 Ozone Serious classification for the NYMA, and certifying that the State has satisfied the requirements for clean fuels for fleets for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious classification for its portion of the NYMA. The EPA is also approving New Jersey's reasonable further progress plans for both the Moderate and Serious classifications of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in the NYMA.

In this rulemaking, the EPA is finalizing approval of New Jersey's 2017 motor vehicle emissions budgets established for the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area in the State's comprehensive January 2, 2018, SIP submittal. The EPA is approving these budgets because the EPA has completed its review of the State's overall 2008 Moderate RFP plan which demonstrates the required VOC/NOx emission reduction from the 2011 baseline year under CAA section 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), and 40 CFR 51.1110. Table 2 lists New Jersey's 2017 motor vehicle emission budgets for the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area being approved into New Jersey's SIP. Additional details of New Jersey's 2017 motor vehicle emission budgets and the rationale for the EPA's approval are outlined in the EPA's proposed rulemaking. See 89 FR 56683.

In this rulemaking, the EPA is also finalizing approval of New Jersey's 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets established for the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area in the State's comprehensive November 23, 2021, SIP submittal. The EPA is approving these budgets because the EPA has completed its review of the State's overall 2008 Serious RFP plan which demonstrates the required VOC/NO X emission reduction from the 2011 baseline year under CAA section 182(b)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1110. Table 3 lists New Jersey's 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets for the New Jersey portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area being approved into New Jersey's SIP. Additional details of New Jersey's 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets and the rationale for the EPA's approval are outlined in the EPA's proposed rulemaking. See 89 FR 56683.

New Jersey provided a supplement to the SIP submission being proposed for approval with this rulemaking on June 6, 2024. The supplemental submission briefed the EPA on Environmental Justice (EJ) considerations within New Jersey by detailing the State's programs and initiatives addressing the needs of communities with EJ concerns that have been ongoing since 1998. For more information on New Jersey's EJ initiatives, the EPA refers the reader to the proposal published on July 10, 2024. See 89 FR 56683.

Although New Jersey considered EJ as part of its submittal, the EPA has determined that conducting its own comprehensive EJ analysis is not necessary in the context of this SIP submission for addressing planning elements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 8-hour NAAQS, as the CAA and its applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation of EJ in relation to the relevant requirements. Additionally, there is no evidence suggesting that this action contradicts the goals of E.O. 12898 or that it will disproportionately harm any specific group or have severe health or environmental impacts. Instead, the EPA expects that this action, which assesses whether New Jersey's SIP adequately addresses planning elements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone 8-hour NAAQS, will generally have a neutral impact on all populations, including communities of color and low-income groups, and will not worsen existing air quality standards.

The EPA concludes, for informational purposes only, that this final rule will not disproportionately harm communities with environmental justice concerns. New Jersey did evaluate EJ considerations voluntarily in its SIP submission, but the EPA's assessment of these considerations is provided for context, not as the basis for the action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA independently of the State's EJ assessment.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);

• 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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;

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

• 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 final rulemaking action, pertaining to New Jersey's submissions, is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns 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.”

The NJDEP evaluated environmental justice as part of its SIP submittal even though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation. The EPA's evaluation of the NJDEP's environmental justice considerations is described above in the section titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.” The analysis was done for the purpose of providing additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. The EPA is taking action under the CAA on bases independent of New Jersey's evaluation of environmental justice. In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 4, 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)).

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The EPA is correcting inadvertent errors in the regulatory text of the final rule as described in this section. These corrections are necessary to be consistent with the May 14, 2024 final rule (89 FR 42062) (hereafter referred to as the “final rule”), the redline-strikeout version of the final regulatory text in the docket for the final rule (hereinafter referred to as “final rule redline-strikeout”) (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0234-0459), and the preamble for the August 1, 2023 proposed rulemaking (88 FR 50282) (hereafter referred to as the “proposed rule”). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)'s good cause exception, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), it is unnecessary to take public comment on these technical, non-substantive corrections.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2) to add “as applicable” after “well-pad site, gathering and boosting site, or facility” to clarify the reporting level. The “as applicable” language was used in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42107 and 42108, May 14, 2024), where the EPA discussed finalizing requirements for Calculation Method 2 in 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2) to allow reporters to measure the natural gas emissions from each pneumatic device vented directly to the atmosphere at the well-pad site, gathering and boosting site, or facility, as applicable. The “as applicable” phrase was also correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(ii) to remove the extraneous instance of “representative” from “measure the emissions under representative conditions representative of normal operations.” The corrected text reads “measure the emissions under conditions representative of normal operations.” This phrase was correct in 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(ii) in the final rule redline-strikeout. The correct phrase (without the duplicate “representative”) also appears in the final amended regulation two times, in the versions of 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(ii) that were effective on July 15, 2024 (89 FR 42224 and 42228, respectively, May 14, 2024).

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2)(v)(A)( 2 ) to replace an incorrect cross-reference to “paragraph (a)(6) of this section” with the correct cross-reference to “paragraph (a)(7) of this section.” The EPA proposed to reference “paragraph (a)(6)” in the Proposed Rule, in which 40 CFR 98.233(a)(6) was “Type of natural gas pneumatic devices” (88 FR 50384, August 1, 2023). In the final amendments, the “Type of natural gas pneumatic devices” paragraph is 40 CFR 98.233(a)(7) (89 FR 42242, May 14, 2024). The cross-reference to “paragraph (a)(7) of this section” was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout. In addition, the correct paragraph reference appears in the version of 40 CFR 98.233(a)(2)(v)(A)(2) that became effective on July 15, 2024 (89 FR 42224, May 14, 2024). All other references to this section are correct.

The EPA is correcting the version of 40 CFR 98.233(a)(3)(ii)(A) that became effective on July 15, 2024 (89 FR 42226, May 14, 2024) to replace an incomplete cross-reference to “§ 98.234(a)(1) through (3)” with the correct cross-reference to “§ 98.234(a)(1) through (3), (6), and (7).” The paragraphs that are cross-referenced in the final rule and the redline-strikeout version of the final regulatory text effective July 15, 2024 in the docket for the final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0234-0460) correspond to the amended version of 40 CFR 98.234 that will be effective on January 1, 2025. However, the amendments to 40 CFR 98.234 that will be effective on January 1, 2025 consolidate current 40 CFR 98.234(a)(6) into 40 CFR 98.234(a)(1) and consolidate current 40 CFR 98.234(a)(7) into 40 CFR 98.234(a)(2). Therefore, the EPA is correcting the cross-referenced paragraphs in the version of 40 CFR 98.233(a)(3)(ii)(A) that became effective on July 15, 2024 so that all of the available methods are correctly referenced.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(c)(1) to replace an incorrectly formatted cross-reference to “§ 98.234(b) of this subpart” with the correct cross-reference to “§ 98.234(b).” The cross reference as published does not follow the cross-reference requirements specified by the Office of the Federal Register. The cross-reference to “§ 98.234(b)” was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(d) to replace an incorrect cross-reference to “paragraphs (d)(5) through (11) of this section” with the correct cross-reference to “paragraphs (d)(5) through (12) of this section.” The EPA specified in both the preamble to the Proposed Rule (88 FR 50304, August 1, 2023) and the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42091, May 14, 2024) that the emission calculation methodologies for nitrogen removal units are identical to the existing calculation methodologies in 40 CFR 98.233(d) for acid gas removal units (AGR). 40 CFR 98.233(d)(10) (revised to 40 CFR 98.233(12)) describes how to calculate mass emissions and is part of the existing calculation methods for AGRs. Per 40 CFR 98.236(a), reporters are required to report annual emissions totals, in metric tons of each GHG, for each applicable emission source. The final step in calculating mass emissions for AGRs and NRUs is specified in 40 CFR 98.233(d)(12) (existing 40 CFR 98.233(d)(10)) and is currently required by subpart W reporters with AGRs. The cross-reference to “paragraphs (d)(5) through (12) of this section” was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(e)(2) to restore the paragraph label “Calculation Method 2,” which was inadvertently omitted from the republished version of 40 CFR 98.233. There were edits to this paragraph in the final rule, but the removal of the paragraph label was not included in the signed final rule and instead this error was introduced in preparing the signed final rule for publication. The paragraph label was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(e) to add “or to other non-flare combustion units” after “routed to a regenerator firebox/fire tubes,” correcting 40 CFR 98.233(e)(4) to add “or other non-flare combustion unit” after “to a flare” and to replace the phrase “vapor recovery system or flare” with “vapor recovery system, flare, or other non-flare combustion unit,” correcting 40 CFR 98.233(e)(4)(iii) to replace “regenerator firebox/fire tubes” with “other non-flare combustion unit” and to replace the phrase “vapor recovery system or flare” with “vapor recovery system, flare, or other non-flare combustion unit,” and correcting 40 CFR 98.233(e)(5)(ii)(B) and (iv) to add “or other non-flare combustion unit” after “regenerator firebox/fire tubes.” These corrections are consistent with the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42124, May 14, 2024), where we discussed our intent to finalize an amendment consistent with public comment to replace all proposed references to regenerator firebox/fire tubes in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3) with references to non-flare combustion units, as commenters noted that desiccant dehydrators are not known to have configurations with regenerator firebox/fire tubes. The preamble to the final rule also described conforming changes in 40 CFR 98.233(e)(5) to specify procedures for calculating emissions from non-flare combustion units used with desiccant dehydrators that are the same as the procedures for calculating emissions from regenerator fireboxes/fire tubes that are used with small glycol dehydrators. The EPA is also correcting 40 CFR 98.233(e)(4)(i) to replace the phrase “vapor recovery system or flare” with “vapor recovery system, flare, or regenerator firebox/fire tubes” and correcting the first sentence 40 CFR 98.233(e)(5) to remove the phrase “or other non-flare combustion unit.” These corrections are needed because these provisions apply to glycol dehydrators rather than desiccant dehydrators, and glycol dehydrators do have regenerator fireboxes/fire tubes. The phrase “or other non-flare combustion unit” was correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout in 40 CFR 98.233(e)(5)(ii)(B) and (e)(5)(iv); the final rule redline-strikeout did not include any of the other conforming corrections.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(f)(1)(i)(B) to correct a grammatical error in the phrase “hours of each well is venting to the atmosphere” The revised text reads “hours that each well is vented to the atmosphere.” This is a correction of a typographical grammar error; there is no change to the meaning of the provision. This typographical error is only partially corrected in the final rule redline-strikeout, in which the phrase reads “hours of each well is vented to the atmosphere.”

The EPA is correcting the version of 40 CFR 98.233(g) that became effective on July 15, 2024 (89 FR 42226, May 14, 2024) to remove an unnecessary term of “÷ 2” in equations W-10A and W-10B. The inclusion of this term is redundant in both equations due to the addition of term “Z p,i ” to allow use of multiphase flow meters to measure gas flow rates during the initial flowback stage as an alternative to assuming the flowrate is one half the flow rate at the beginning of separation, as stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42132, May 14, 2024). The amendments to 40 CFR 98.233(g) that will be effective on January 1, 2025 correctly present equations W-10A and W-10B without the inclusion of a “÷ 2” term and with the addition of the same term “Z p,i ” . Therefore, the EPA is correcting equations W-10A and W-10B to remove the “÷ 2” that was inadvertently retained in the version of 40 CFR 98.233(g) that became effective on July 15, 2024 so that the equations are correct.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(j)(4)(i)(C) and 98.236(j)(1)(x)(F) to remove the reference to a thief hatch that is “not properly seated.” The correction is consistent with the EPA's intent to remove from the proposed provisions the phrase “not properly seated” in 40 CFR 98.233(j)(4)(i)(C) through (D) and 40 CFR 98.233(j)(4)(ii) and instead specify that a thief hatch is open if it is fully or partially open such there is a visible gap between the hatch cover and the hatch portal, as stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42132, May 14, 2024). The phrase “not properly seated” was correctly not included in 40 CFR 98.233(j)(4)(i)(C) or 98.236(j)(1)(x)(F) in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(j)(5)(i) and (j)(5)(i)(B) to replace the requirement for a “visual inspection” with “audio, visual, and olfactory inspection.” The correction is consistent with the EPA's intent to require audio, visual, and olfactory (AVO) inspections in 40 CFR 98.233(j)(5) rather than just visual inspections to determine if a gas-liquid separator liquid dump valve is stuck in an open or partially open position, as stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42133, May 14, 2024). The phrase “audio, visual, and olfactory inspection” was correctly included in 40 CFR 98.233(j)(5)(i) or (j)(5)(i)(B) in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(n)(1)(ii)(A) to replace the cross-reference to “§ 60.5413b of this chapter” with a more specific correct cross-reference to “§ 60.5413b(b) of this chapter.” This correction is consistent with the EPA's stated intent in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42145, May 14, 2024), in which the EPA agreed with a commenter on the Proposed Rule that pointed out the proposed Tier 2 requirements for flares should include a cross- reference to the applicable section in 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOb (hereafter referred to as “NSPS OOOOb”) that specifies performance test requirements for enclosed combustion devices in NSPS OOOOb ( i.e., a subset of the total flare population under subpart W). The preamble to the final rule indicated that the oversight was corrected in 40 CFR 98.233(n)(1)(ii)(A) and 40 CFR 98.233(n)(1)(ii)(C) of the final amendments by including cross-references to 40 CFR 60.5413b(b) and (d) that require facilities to either conduct testing of enclosed combustion devices themselves or have testing conducted by the enclosed combustion device manufacturer. The cross-reference to “§ 60.5413b(b) of this chapter” was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(n)(1)(ii)(B) to replace an incorrect cross-reference to “§ 60.5417b(b) of this chapter” with the correct cross-reference to “§ 60.5417b of this chapter.” 40 CFR 60.5417b describes the continuous monitoring requirements while the more specific reference to 40 CFR 60.5417b(b) lists the control devices that are exempt from the requirements. The correction is consistent with the EPA's intent for open flares to require that the NSPS OOOOb requirements in 40 CFR 60.5412b(a)(3) be followed, along with the applicable continuous compliance and continuous monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 60.5415b(f) and 40 CFR 60.5417b, respectively, as stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42140, May 14, 2024). The cross-reference to “§ 60.5417b of this chapter” was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(o)(6)(iii) to restore equation W-23, which was inadvertently omitted from the republished version of 40 CFR 98.233. No changes to this equation were included in the signed final rule and instead this error was introduced in preparing the signed final rule for publication. The final rule redline-strikeout correctly included equation W-23.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(p)(4)(ii) to restore paragraphs (A) and (B), which were inadvertently omitted from the republished version of 40 CFR 98.233. No changes to these paragraphs were included in the signed final rule and instead this error was introduced in preparing the signed final rule for publication. The final rule redline-strikeout correctly included 40 CFR 98.233(p)(4)(ii)(A) and (B).

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(v)(B) to add “or § 60.5401b” after “§ 60.5400b” to include both cross-references. This correction is consistent with the EPA's intent to update the cross references in the subpart W final rule to the NSPS OOOOb to include 40 CFR 60.5401b for natural gas processing in 40 CFR 98.232(d)(7), 98.233(q)(1)(v), 98.233(q)(1)(vii)(F), and 98.236(q)(1)(iv)(D), as stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42172, May 14, 2024). The cross-reference to 40 CFR 60.5401b was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(vii)(D) to add “site, as defined in § 98.238,” after “single well-pad” to clarify what is considered a complete leak detection survey. The use of the term “well-pad site” is consistent with the rest of the amendments in the final rule. In addition, the EPA stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42164, May 14, 2024) that for the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production industry segment, final 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1) specifies that a complete leak detection survey is a complete survey of all equipment on a single well-pad site. The reference to a “single well-pad site, as defined in § 98.238” was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(vii)(G), the parameter “n” of equation W-31 in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2)(x)(A), and 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(viii)(B) to replace incorrect cross-references to “paragraph (q)(1)(vii) of this section” with the correct cross-reference to “paragraph (q)(1)(viii) of this section.” 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(vii)(G), the parameter “n” of equation W-31 in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2)(x)(A), and 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(viii)(B) all refer to provisions for complete leak surveys for natural gas distribution facilities electing to conduct surveys over multiple years. Multi-year surveys for natural gas distribution facilities are further addressed in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(viii) and not in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(vii). The EPA is also correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(viii)(B) to replace a cross-reference to non-existent “paragraph (q)(3)(vii)(A) of this section” with the correct cross-reference to “paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(A) of this section.” Natural gas distribution facilities are directed to use equation W-31 to determine the meter/regulator run population in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(viii)(A). In addition, table 3 of the preamble to the final rule indicates that in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(viii)(B), the EPA intended to correct the internal cross reference from “paragraph (q)(3)(vii)(A) of this section” to “paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(A) of this section” (89 FR 42191, May 14, 2024). The cross references to “paragraph (q)(1)(viii) of this section” and “paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(A) of this section” were correct in each of these sections in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting the cross-references in the parameter “k” of equation W-30 in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2) and correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(vii) to replace cross-references to non-existent paragraphs “§ 98.234(q)(1), (3) and (5),” “§ 98.234(q)(2)(i),” and “§ 98.234(q)(2)(ii)” with correct cross-references to “§ 98.234(a)(1), (3) and (5),” “§ 98.234(a)(2)(i),” and “§ 98.234(a)(2)(ii),” respectively. The “k” term is the undetected leak factor specific to the leak detection method. The leak detection methods are in 40 CFR 98.234(a); 40 CFR 98.234(q) does not exist. These cross-references were incorrect in the amendatory regulatory text of the Proposed Rule as well as the final rule redline-strikeout; however, both the preamble to the Proposed Rule and the preamble to the final rule clearly state that the adjustment factor k is screening method-specific, which supports the intent to cross-reference the screening methods. For example, the preamble to the final rule states at 89 FR 42163, May 14, 2024 that in order to account for the quantity of emissions that remain undetected by each screening method, we are finalizing as proposed to provide a method specific adjustment factor, k, for the calculation methods used to quantify emissions from equipment leaks using the leaker method in 40 CFR 98.233(q). For all of these same reasons, the EPA is correcting similar language in the regulatory text that was effective July 15, 2024 (for Reporting Year 2024). Specifically, the EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(vii) to replace cross-references to non-existent paragraphs “§ 98.234(q)(1), (3), and (5)” “§ 98.234(q)(2)(i),” and “§ 98.234(q)(2)(ii)” with correct cross-references to “§ 98.234(a)(1), (3), (5), and (6),” “§ 98.234(a)(2),” and “§ 98.234(a)(7),” respectively. The corrected cross-references reference the same screening methods as the corrections to the version of 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(vii) that will be effective January 1, 2025, but the specific cross-references are slightly different so that they correctly reference the methods in 40 CFR 98.234(a) that are currently effective rather than the version of 40 CFR 98.234(a) that will not be effective until January 1, 2025.

The EPA is correcting the parameter “GHG i ” of equation W-30 in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2) to clarify that onshore natural gas transmission pipeline facilities should use the same default GHG concentrations as natural gas distribution facilities. The correct mole fractions for the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline industry segment are specified in the final rule preamble at 89 FR 42091, May 14, 2024, where the EPA indicated that the addition of “onshore natural gas transmission pipeline” should be grouped with a methane concentration of 1 and a carbon dioxide concentration value of 0.011 in the variable “GHGi” of equation W-32A in 40 CFR 98.233(r). While the preamble to the final rule did not specifically identify this as including changes to 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2), this is a conforming edit with the preamble statement. The revision to the parameter “GHG i ” of equation W-30 in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2) was correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(q)(4)(i) to replace the incorrect cross-reference to “paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (v) of this section” with the correct cross-references to “paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section” in order for this cross-reference to include the onshore natural gas transmission pipeline facility components specified in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(1)(vi). The cross-reference to “paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section” was not correct in the final rule redline-strikeout. However, this correction appropriately includes a cross-reference for transmission pipeline facilities to use the provisions to develop a facility-specific emission factor in accordance with 40 CFR 98.233(q)(4). As discussed in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42088, May 14, 2024), in consideration of public comments concerning the equipment leak emission sources at transmission pipeline companies and consistent with CAA section 136(h), we finalized that transmission pipeline facilities can develop a facility-specific leaker factor in accordance with 40 CFR 98.233(q)(4) using the leak measurements obtained in accordance with 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3). Our intent for the facility-specific emission factor provisions to apply to transmission pipeline facilities is also made clear in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(2)(xii), which provides that transmission pipeline facilities must use the facility-specific leaker emission factor calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 98.233(q)(4) of this section.

The EPA is correcting the parameters “E s,MR,i ” and “Count MR ” of equation W-32B in 40 CFR 98.233(r) introductory text to replace incorrect cross-references to “paragraph (q)(3)(vii)(B) of this section” with the correct cross-references to “paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(B) of this section.” These two variables are specific to emissions calculations for meter/regulator runs at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations (Natural Gas Distribution industry segment). 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(viii)(B) is also specific to natural gas distribution, while 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(vii) is for the adjustment factor for undetected leaks (which is not specific to natural gas distribution). Further, 40 CFR 98.233(q)(3)(vii)(B) does not exist. The reference to a “paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(B) of this section” was correct in both parameters in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(s)(2)(i) to remove “and report” after “calculate” and before “emissions” to remove the reference to reporting emissions under 40 CFR 98.233 (“Calculating GHG emissions.”). This specific wording change was not discussed in the preamble to the final rule but the phrase “and report” was correctly not included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.233(z)(2)(i)(B) to remove “CO 2 content of” after “maximum” and before “higher heating value” to delete extraneous text that was inadvertently not removed. This correction is consistent with the EPA's intent to finalize in 40 CFR 98.233(z)(2) that subpart C methodologies Tier 2 or higher may be used for fuel meeting the definition of “natural gas” in 40 CFR 98.238 if it has a minimum HHV of 950 Btu/scf, a maximum HHV of 1,100 Btu/scf, and a minimum CH 4 content of 70 percent by volume, as stated in preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42179, May 14, 2024). The phrase “CO 2 content of” was correctly not included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(b), 98.236(b)(5)(i)(A), 98.236(c)(4)(vi), (vii), and (viii), and 98.236(e)(3)(vi) to replace instances of “well-pad” with the term “well-pad site” defined in 40 CFR 98.238 for clarity in the reporting requirements. As the EPA stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42108, May 14, 2024), while the phrase “well-pads” generally refers to sites in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production segment that would be considered a complete survey, we know there are cases when some pneumatic devices might not be on a well-pad but are still “associated with a single well-pad” (as defined in 40 CFR 98.238). In the preamble to the final rule, we noted that we finalized the use of the term “well-pad site” to ensure that the requirements to measure or monitor all pneumatic devices (or equipment leaks) at the site-level for facilities in the Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production segment include such devices. We also clarified in the preamble to the final rule that the reporting requirements for sources that are not reported at the equipment level must be reported at the well-pad site level. The term “well-pad site” was correctly included in each of these paragraphs in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(b)(5)(ii)(C) to replace the reference to the non-existent parameter “T m.z ” in equation W-1C to § 98.233 with the correct reference to “T mal,z ” in equation W-1C to § 98.233. While the equation parameter referenced in 40 CFR 98.236(b)(5)(ii)(C) was not correct in the final rule redline-strikeout, the term “T mal,z ” is the correct parameter defined in equation W-1C. The term “T m.z ” does not exist. The EPA is correcting this reporting element in the regulatory text that was effective July 15, 2024 (for Reporting Year 2024) as well as the regulatory text that is effective January 1, 2025.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(e)(1)(xvi)(C) to replace the incorrect cross-reference to “paragraph (e)(4) of this section” with the correct cross-reference to “(e)(4).” In the signed final rule, the Proposed Rule and the final rule redline-strikeout, the second cross-reference was to “(e)(4)” and was included in the phrase “according to § 98.233(e)(1) and, if applicable, (e)(4).” The EPA's intention was that “§ 98.233” applied to both cross-references as it does in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(1)(xvi)(B) and (e)(3)(viii)(A) and (B), which all use the phrase “according to§ 98.233(e)(1) and, if applicable, (e)(4)” in the final rule. During preparation for publication, the reference to “(e)(4)” in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(1)(xvi)(C) was erroneously revised to “paragraph (e)(4) of this section”; 40 CFR 98.236(e)(4) is for reporting, not calculation. The corrected version restores the cross-reference as it appeared in the signed final rule, the Proposed Rule, and the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3)(vii)(B) to replace the phrase “from the flash tank” with “routed.” This correction is consistent with the discussion in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42124, May 14, 2024), in which the EPA noted that flash tanks are not applicable for desiccant dehydrators, the proposed reference to flash tanks in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3)(vii)(B) was included in error, and the final reporting requirement in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3)(vii)(B) does not include the proposed reference to flash tanks. The phrase “routed” was correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3)(viii)(A) to replace the phrase “non-flare combustion units” with “non-flare combustion unit” to correct a grammatical error. This correction fixes a typographical error in the number agreement of this paragraph. The final rule redline-strikeout correctly uses the phrase “non-flare combustion unit.”

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(l)(3)(iii) to replace the phrase “tested well(s)” with “tested well” for consistency with the requirement to report information in 40 CFR 98.236(l)(3) for each well tested. This correction fixes a typographical error in the number agreement of this paragraph. The correction to refer to a singular well is consistent with the requirement to report information in 40 CFR 98.236(l)(3) for each well tested in the final rule. The final rule redline-strikeout correctly uses the phrase “tested well” in 40 CFR 98.236(l)(3)(iii).

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(l)(4)(iv) to remove the requirement that reporting of the data element may only be delayed if the only wells that are tested in the same basin are wildcat wells and/or delineation wells. This correction is consistent with the EPA's intent to finalize the reporting requirements for well testing to continue providing the option for the 2-year delay in reporting these data elements but to no longer require that all wells in the sub-basin be wildcat and/or delineation wells for reporters to be able to use the 2-year delay, as stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42106, May 14, 2024). This provision is correct in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(m)(7)(iii) to replace the phrase “continuous gas composition analyzers” with “a continuous gas composition analyzer” to correct a grammatical error. The preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42137, May 14, 2024) uses the singular “analyzer” when noting that the final reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236(m)(7) include, as proposed, a requirement to indicate whether a continuous flow monitor was used to measure flow rates and a continuous composition analyzer was used to measure CH 4 and CO 2 concentrations. The phase “a continuous gas composition analyzer” is correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(n)(14) to replace the incorrect cross-reference to “§ 98.233(n)(3)(i) or (ii)” with the correct cross-reference to “§ 98.233(n)(4)(i) or (ii).” Final 40 CFR 98.236(n)(14) requires reporting of the annual average mole fraction of CH 4 in the feed gas to the flare. Final 40 CFR 98.233(n)(3) specifies methods for calculating flow rate while 40 CFR 98.233(n)(4) specifies methods for calculating composition. In the proposed regulatory text, 40 CFR 98.233(n)(3) specified methods for calculating composition, so the reference to 40 CFR 98.233(n)(3) in proposed 98.236(n)(14) was correct, but that reference was not updated when the paragraphs in 40 CFR 98.233(n) were re-arranged between proposal and promulgation. The cross-reference to “§ 98.233(n)(4)(i) or (ii)” is correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(q)(2)(iv) to replace the incorrect reference to a “site-specific emission factor” with the correct reference to a “facility-specific emission factor.” In the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42166, May 14, 2024), we stated that we were finalizing a change from proposal to the terminology of the emission factor from “site-specific” to “facility-specific” to better characterize the application of the developed emission factor, which is to be at the facility-level based on site-level measurement data for certain industry segments. This change is also consistent with changes from the proposed rule text to the final rule text made to other instances of “site-specific” to “facility-specific” in 40 CFR 98.233(q)(4). The reference to a “facility-specific emission factor” is correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

The EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(z)(2) to replace the less specific reference to “natural gas meeting the criteria in § 98.233(z)” with the specific reference to “natural gas meeting the criteria in § 98.233(z)(1) or (2) or a fuel meeting the criteria in § 98.233(z)(3)” to better clarify which reporting requirements are applicable. This correction is consistent with the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42180, May 14, 2024), in which the EPA stated that the final amendments included a new reporting requirement in 40 CFR 98.236(z)(2) specifically for RICE and GT that combust natural gas that meets the criteria of 40 CFR 98.233(z)(1) or (2) or a fuel meeting the specifications of 40 CFR 98.233(z)(3). The reference to a “natural gas meeting the criteria in § 98.233(z)(1) or (2) or a fuel meeting the criteria in § 98.233(z)(3)” is correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

Finally, the EPA is correcting 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3) to add “under the same e-GGRT identification number in the calendar year” after “subpart NN of this part” to clarify the requirements reporters must meet to no longer be required to report the quantities of natural gas received or NGLs received or leaving the gas processing plant. As the EPA stated in the preamble to the final rule (89 FR 42186, May 14, 2024), the final reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3) specify that facilities that indicate that they both fractionate NGLs and report as a supplier under subpart NN under the same e-GGRT identification number and for the same calendar year would no longer be required to report the quantities of natural gas received or NGLs received or leaving the gas processing plant. The phrase “under the same e-GGRT identification number in the calendar year” is correctly included in the final rule redline-strikeout.

Section 553(b)(B) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making these technical corrections final without prior proposal. Such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary as the technical corrections are for minor typographical and other nonsubstantive errors made in preparing the amendatory regulatory text for the final rule or in preparing the signed final rule for publication, as explained in this preamble.

In FR Doc. 2024-08988 beginning on page 42062 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, May 14, 2024, the following corrections are made:

1. Effective January 1, 2025, in § 98.233:

a. On page 42238, in the third column, paragraph (a)(2) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(2) Calculation Method 2. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may elect to measure the volumetric flow rate of each natural gas pneumatic device vent that vents directly to the atmosphere at your well-pad site, gathering and boosting site, or facility, as applicable, as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (ix) of this section. You must exclude the counts of devices measured according to paragraph (a)(1) of this section from the counts of devices to be measured or for which emissions are calculated according to the requirements in this paragraph (a)(2).”

b. On page 42239, in the first column, paragraph (a)(2)(iii) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(iii) For all industry segments, determine the volumetric flow rate of each natural gas pneumatic device vent (in standard cubic feet per hour) using one of the methods specified in § 98.234(b) through (d), as appropriate, according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section. You must measure the emissions under conditions representative of normal operations, which excludes periods immediately after conducting maintenance on the device or manually actuating the device.”

c. On page 42239, in the second column, paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A)( 2 ) is corrected to read:

“( 2 ) Confirm that the device is correctly characterized as a continuous high bleed pneumatic device according to the provisions in paragraph (a)(7) of this section. If the device type was mischaracterized, recharacterize the device type and use the appropriate methods in paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) or (C) of this section, as applicable.”

d. On page 42243, in the first column, (c)(1) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(1) Calculation method 1. If you have or elect to install a continuous flow meter that is capable of meeting the requirements of § 98.234(b) on a supply line to natural gas driven pneumatic pumps, then for the period of the year when the natural gas supply line is dedicated to any one or more natural gas driven pneumatic pumps, and each of the pumps is vented directly to the atmosphere, you must use the applicable methods specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section to calculate vented CH 4 and CO 2 emissions from those pumps.”

e. On page 42243, in the third column, paragraph (c)(2)(ii) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(ii) Determine the volumetric flow rate of each natural gas driven pneumatic pump (in standard cubic feet per hour) using one of the methods specified in § 98.234(b) through (d), as appropriate, according to the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. You must measure the emissions under conditions representative of normal operations, which excludes periods immediately after conducting maintenance on the pump.”

f. On page 42245, beginning in the first column, paragraph (d) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(d) Acid gas removal unit (AGR) vents and Nitrogen removal unit (NRU) vents. For AGR vents (including processes such as amine, membrane, molecular sieve or other absorbents and adsorbents), calculate emissions for CH 4 and CO 2 vented directly to the atmosphere or emitted through a sulfur recovery plant, using any of the calculation methods described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section, and also comply with paragraphs (d)(5) through (12) of this section, as applicable. For NRU vents, calculate emissions for CH 4 vented directly to the atmosphere using any of the calculation methods described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section, and also comply with paragraphs (d)(5) through (12) of this section, as applicable. If any AGR vents or NRU vents are routed to a flare, you must calculate CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O emissions for the flare stack as specified in paragraph (n) of this section and report emissions from the flare as specified in § 98.236(n). If any AGR vents or NRU vents are routed through an engine ( e.g., permeate from a membrane or de-adsorbed gas from a pressure swing adsorber used as fuel supplement) ( i.e., routed to combustion), you must calculate CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O emissions as specified in subpart C of this part or as specified in paragraph (z) of this section, as applicable.”

g. On page 42247, beginning in the first column, paragraph (e) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(e) Dehydrator vents. For dehydrator vents, calculate annual CH 4 and CO 2 emissions using the applicable calculation methods described in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. For glycol dehydrators that have an annual average daily natural gas throughput that is greater than or equal to 0.4 million standard cubic feet per day, use Calculation Method 1 in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. For glycol dehydrators that have an annual average of daily natural gas throughput that is greater than 0 million standard cubic feet per day and less than 0.4 million standard cubic feet per day, use either Calculation Method 1 in paragraph (e)(1) of this section or Calculation Method 2 in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. If you are required to use a software program consistent with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section for compliance with Federal or state regulations, air permit requirements, or annual emissions inventory reporting for the current reporting year, you must use Calculation Method 1 to calculate annual CH 4 and CO 2 emissions. If emissions from dehydrator vents are routed to a vapor recovery system, you must calculate the emissions according to paragraph (e)(4) of this section. If emissions from dehydrator vents are routed to a regenerator firebox/fire tubes or to other non-flare combustion units, you must calculate CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O annual emissions as specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section. If any dehydrator vents are routed to a flare, you must calculate CH 4 , CO 2 , and N 2 O emissions for the flare stack as specified in paragraph (n) of this section and report emissions from the flare as specified in § 98.236(n).”

h. On page 42247, beginning in the third column, paragraph (e)(2) is corrected to read:

“(2) Calculation Method 2. Calculate annual volumetric emissions from glycol dehydrators using equation W-5 to this section, and then calculate the collective CH 4 and CO 2 mass emissions from the volumetric emissions using the procedures in paragraph (v) of this section:

i. On page 42248, in the first column, paragraphs (e)(4) introductory text and (e)(4)(i) are corrected to read:

“(4) Emissions vented directly to atmosphere from dehydrators routed to a vapor recovery system, flare, or regenerator firebox/fire tubes. If the dehydrator(s) has a vapor recovery system, routes emissions to a flare, or routes emissions to a regenerator firebox/fire tubes and you use Calculation Method 1 or Calculation Method 2 in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, calculate annual emissions vented directly to atmosphere from the dehydrator(s) during periods of time when emissions were not routed to the vapor recovery system, flare, or regenerator firebox/fire tubes as specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the dehydrator(s) has a vapor recovery system or routes emissions to a flare or other non-flare combustion unit and you use Calculation Method 3 in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, calculate annual emissions vented directly to atmosphere from the dehydrator(s) during periods of time when emissions were not routed to the vapor recovery system, flare, or other non-flare combustion unit as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section.

“(i) When emissions from dehydrator(s) are calculated using Calculation Method 1 or 2, calculate vented emissions as specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section, which represents the emissions from the dehydrator prior to the vapor recovery system, flare, or regenerator firebox/fire tubes. Calculate an average hourly vented emissions rate by dividing the vented emissions by the number of hours that the dehydrator was in operation.”

j. On page 42248, beginning in the second column, paragraph (e)(4)(iii) is corrected to read:

“(iii) When emissions from dehydrator(s) are calculated using Calculation Method 3, calculate total annual emissions vented directly to atmosphere from the dehydrator(s) during periods of time when emissions were not routed to the vapor recovery system, flare, or other non-flare combustion unit by determining of the number of depressurization events (including portions of an event) that vented to atmosphere based on engineering estimate and best available data. You must take into account periods with reduced capture efficiency of the vapor recovery system, flare, or other non-flare combustion unit. If emissions are routed to a flare but the flare is unlit, calculate emissions in accordance with the methodology specified in paragraph (n) of this section and report emissions from the flare as specified in § 98.236(n).”

k. On page 42248, in the third column, paragraph (e)(5) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(5) Combustion emissions from routing to regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit. If any glycol dehydrator emissions are routed to a regenerator firebox/fire tubes, calculate emissions from these devices attributable to dehydrator flash tank vents or still vents as specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section. If any desiccant dehydrator emissions are routed to a non-flare combustion unit, calculate combusted emissions as specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section. If you operate a CEMS to monitor the emissions from the regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit, calculate emissions as specified in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section.”

l. On page 42249, in the first column, paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) Measure the composition of the gas from the dehydrator(s) to the regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit using a continuous composition analyzer. If you continuously measure gas composition, then those measured data must be used to calculate dehydrator emissions from the regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit.”

m. On page 42249, in the second column, paragraph (e)(5)(iv) is corrected to read:

“(iv) If you operate and maintain a CEMS that has both a CO 2 concentration monitor and volumetric flow rate monitor for the combustion gases from the regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit, you must calculate only CO 2 emissions for the regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit. You must follow the Tier 4 Calculation Method and all associated calculation, quality assurance, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for Tier 4 in subpart C of this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). If a CEMS is used to calculate emissions from a regenerator firebox/fire tubes or other non-flare combustion unit, the requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(ii) and (iii) of this section are not required.”

n. On page 42250, beginning in the first column, paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) Apply the average hourly flow rate calculated under paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of this section to each well in the same pressure group that have the same tubing diameter group, for the number of hours that each well is vented to the atmosphere.”

o. On page 42258, beginning in the second column, paragraph (j)(4)(i)(C) is corrected to read:

“(C) During periods when a thief hatch is open and emissions from the tank are routed to a vapor recovery system or a flare, assume the capture efficiency of the vapor recovery system or a flare is 0 percent. A thief hatch is open if it is fully or partially open such there is a visible gap between the hatch cover and the hatch portal. To calculate vented emissions during such periods, multiply the average hourly vented emissions rate determined in paragraph (j)(4)(i)(A) of this section by the number of hours that the thief hatch is open. Determine the number of hours that the thief hatch is open as specified in paragraph (j)(7) of this section.”

p. On page 42258, beginning in the second column, paragraph (j)(5)(i) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(i) If a parametric monitor is operating on a controlled atmospheric pressure storage tank or gas-liquid separator, you must use data obtained from the parametric monitor to determine periods when the gas-liquid separator liquid dump valve is stuck in an open or partially open position. An applicable operating parametric monitor must be capable of logging data whenever a gas-liquid separator liquid dump valve is stuck in an open or partially open position, as well as when the gas-liquid separator liquid dump valve is subsequently closed. If an applicable parametric monitor is not operating, including during periods of time when the parametric monitor is malfunctioning, you must perform an audio, visual, and olfactory inspection of each gas-liquid separator liquid dump valve to determine if the valve is stuck in an open or partially open position, in accordance with paragraphs (j)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.”

q. On page 42259, in the first column, paragraph (j)(5)(i)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) If stuck gas-liquid separator liquid dump valve is identified, the dump valve must be counted as being open since the beginning of the calendar year, or from the previous audio, visual, and olfactory inspection that did not identify the dump valve as being stuck in the open position in the same calendar year. If the dump valve is fixed following audio, visual, and olfactory inspection, the time period for which the dump valve was stuck open will end upon being repaired. If a stuck dump valve is identified and not repaired, the time period for which the dump valve was stuck open must be counted as having occurred through the rest of the calendar year.”

r. On page 42261, beginning in the first column, paragraphs (n)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) are corrected to read:

“(A) The requirements in § 60.5412b(a)(1) of this chapter, along with the applicable testing requirements in § 60.5413b(b) of this chapter, the applicable continuous compliance requirements in § 60.5415b(f) of this chapter, and the applicable continuous monitoring requirements in § 60.5417b of this chapter. You must also keep the applicable records in § 60.5420b(c)(11) of this chapter.

“(B) The requirements in § 60.5412b(a)(3) of this chapter, the applicable continuous compliance requirements in § 60.5415b(f) of this chapter, and the applicable continuous monitoring requirements in § 60.5417b of this chapter. You must also keep the applicable records in § 60.5420b(c)(11) of this chapter.”

s. On page 42268, beginning in the first column, paragraph (o)(6)(iii) is corrected to read:

“(iii) Using equation W-23 to this section, develop an emission factor for each compressor mode-source combination specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. These emission factors must be calculated annually and used in equation W-22 to this section to determine volumetric emissions from a centrifugal compressor in the mode- source combinations that were not measured in the reporting year.

t. On page 42271, in the third column, paragraph (p)(4)(ii) is corrected to read:

“(ii) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the common stack using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (p)(4)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section.

(A) A temporary meter such as a vane anemometer according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).

(B) Calibrated bagging according to methods set forth in § 98.234(c).

(C) A high volume sampler according to methods set forth in § 98.234(d).

(D) [Reserved]

(E) You may choose to use any of the methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(1) through (3) to screen for emissions. If emissions are detected using one of these specified methods, then you must use one of the methods specified in paragraphs (p)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. If emissions are not detected using the methods in § 98.234(a)(1) through (3), then you may assume that the volumetric emissions are zero. For the purposes of this paragraph, when using any of the methods in § 98.234(a), emissions are detected whenever a leak is detected according to the method. Acoustic leak detection is only applicable for through-valve leakage and is not applicable for screening a manifolded group of compressor sources.

(F) If one of the screening methods specified in § 98.234(a)(1) through (3) identifies a leak in a manifolded group of reciprocating compressor sources, you may use acoustic leak detection, according to § 98.234(a)(5), to identify the source of the leak. You must use one of the methods specified in paragraphs (p)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section to quantify the emissions from the identified source.”

u. On page 42275, in the second column, paragraph (q)(1)(v)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) For the components listed in § 98.232(d)(7) that are subject to the equipment leak standards for onshore natural gas processing plants in § 60.5400b or § 60.5401b of this chapter, or an applicable approved state plan or applicable Federal plan in part 62 of this chapter, you must use either of the leak detection methods in § 98.234(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(ii).”

v. On page 42275, in the third column, paragraph (q)(1)(vii)(D) is corrected to read:

“(D) For an onshore petroleum and natural gas production facility electing to conduct leak detection surveys according to paragraph (q)(1)(iv) of this section, a survey of all required components at a single well-pad site, as defined in § 98.238, will be considered a complete leak detection survey for purposes of this section.”

w. On page 42276, in the second column, paragraph (q)(1)(vii)(G) is corrected to read:

“(G) For natural gas distribution facilities that choose to conduct equipment leak surveys at all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations over multiple years as provided in paragraph (q)(1)(viii) of this section, a survey of all required components at the above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations monitored during the calendar year will be considered a complete leak detection survey for purposes of this section.”

x. On page 42276, beginning in the first column, parameters “k” and “GHG i ” of equation W-30 in paragraph (q)(2) introductory text are corrected to read:

y. On page 42277, in the second column, parameter “n” of equation W-31 in paragraph (q)(2)(x)(A) is corrected to read:

z. On page 42278, in the second column, paragraph (q)(3)(vii) is corrected to read:

“(vii) Multiply the total CO 2 and CH 4 mass emissions by survey method and component type determined in paragraph (q)(3)(vi) of this section by the survey specific value for “k”, the factor adjustment for undetected leaks, where k equals 1.25 for the methods in § 98.234(a)(1), (3) and (5); k equals 1.55 for the method in § 98.234(a)(2)(i); and k equals 1.27 for the method in § 98.234(a)(2)(ii).”

aa. On page 42278, in the third column, paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) If you chose to conduct equipment leak surveys at all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations over multiple years, “n,” according to paragraph (q)(1)(viii) of this section, you must use the meter/regulator run population emission factors calculated according to paragraph (q)(3)(viii)(A) of this section and the total count of all meter/regulator runs at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations to calculate emissions from all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations using equation W-32B to this section.”

bb. On page 42278, in the third column, paragraph (q)(4)(i) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(i) You must track the leak measurements made separately for each of the applicable components listed in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section and by the leak detection method according to the following three bins.”

cc. On page 42279, in the first column, the parameter “E s,MR,i ” of equation W-32B in paragraph (r) introductory text is corrected to read:

dd. On page 42279, in the second column, the parameter “Count MR ” of equation W-32B in paragraph (r) introductory text is corrected to read:

ee. On page 42280, in the third column, paragraph (s)(2)(i) is corrected to read:

“(i) Use the most recent monitoring and calculation methods published by BOEM as referenced in 30 CFR 550.302 through 304 to calculate annual emissions for any reporting year that overlaps with a BOEM emissions inventory year and any other reporting year in which the facility has the data needed to use BOEM's emissions calculation methods.”

ff. On page 42284, in the second column, paragraph (z)(2)(i)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) The natural gas must have a maximum higher heating value of 1,100 Btu per standard cubic foot.”

2. Effective January 1, 2025, in § 98.236:

a. On page 42295, in the third column, paragraph (b) introductory text is corrected to read:

“(b) Natural gas pneumatic devices. You must indicate whether the facility contains the following types of equipment: Continuous high bleed natural gas pneumatic devices, continuous low bleed natural gas pneumatic devices, and intermittent bleed natural gas pneumatic devices. If the facility contains any continuous high bleed natural gas pneumatic devices, continuous low bleed natural gas pneumatic devices, or intermittent bleed natural gas pneumatic devices, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section, as applicable. You must report the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section, as applicable, for each well-pad site (for onshore petroleum and natural gas production), each gathering and boosting site (for onshore petroleum and natural gas gathering and boosting), or facility (for all other applicable industry segments).”

b. On page 42297, in the first column, paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) is corrected:

“(A) Indicate whether you measured emissions according to § 98.233(a)(3)(i)(A) or used default emission factors according to § 98.233(a)(3)(i)(B) to calculate emissions from your continuous high bleed and continuous low bleed natural gas pneumatic devices vented directly to the atmosphere at this well-pad site, gathering and boosting site, or facility, as applicable.”

c. On page 42297, in the first column, paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(C) is corrected to read:

“(C) Average time the intermittent bleed natural gas pneumatic devices were in service ( i.e., supplied with natural gas) and assumed to be malfunctioning in the calendar year (average value of “T mal,z ” in equation W-1C to § 98.233).”

d. On page 42298, in the first column, paragraphs (c)(4)(vi) and (vii) are corrected to read:

“(vi) Annual CO 2 emissions, in metric tons CO 2 , cumulative for all natural gas driven pneumatic pumps for which emissions were directly measured and calculated as specified in § 98.233(c)(2)(ii) through (vi). Enter 0 if emissions from none of the natural gas driven pneumatic pumps at this well-pad site or gathering and boosting site were measured during the reporting year.

“(vii) Annual CH 4 emissions, in metric tons CH 4 , cumulative for all natural gas driven pneumatic pumps for which emissions were directly measured and calculated as specified in § 98.233(c)(2)(ii) through (vi). Enter 0 if emissions from none of the natural gas driven pneumatic pumps at this well-pad site or gathering and boosting site were measured during the reporting year.”

e. On page 42298, beginning in the first column, paragraph (c)(4)(viii) is corrected to read:

“(viii) Annual CO 2 emissions, in metric tons CO 2 , cumulative for all natural gas driven pneumatic pumps for which emissions were calculated according to § 98.233(c)(2)(vii)(B) through (D). Enter 0 if emissions from all natural gas driven pneumatic pumps at this well-pad site or gathering and boosting site were measured during the reporting year.”

f. On page 42300, in the third column, paragraph (e)(1)(xvi)(C) is corrected to read:

g. On page 42301, beginning in the third column, paragraph (e)(3)(vi) is corrected to read:

“(vi) For desiccant dehydrators at the facility, well-pad site, or gathering and boosting site identified in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, whether any dehydrator emissions were routed to a control device that reduces CO 2 and/or CH 4 emissions other than a vapor recovery system or a flare or a non-flare combustion unit. If any dehydrator emissions were routed to a control device that reduces CO 2 and/or CH 4 emissions other than a vapor recovery system or a flare or a non-flare combustion unit, then you must specify the type of control device(s) and the total number of dehydrators at the facility that were routed to each type of control device.”

h. On page 42302, in the first column, paragraph (e)(3)(vii)(B) is corrected to read:

“(B) Total volume of gas routed to non-flare combustion units, in standard cubic feet.”

i. On page 42302, in the first column, paragraph (e)(3)(viii)(A) is corrected to read:

“(A) Annual CO 2 emissions, in metric tons CO 2 , for emissions from all desiccant dehydrators reported under paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section that are not venting to a flare or non-flare combustion unit, calculated according to § 98.233(e)(3) and, if applicable, (e)(4), and summing for all such dehydrators.”

j. On page 42307, in the first column, paragraph (j)(1)(x)(F) is corrected to read:

“(F) The number of atmospheric pressure storage tanks in paragraph (j)(1)(x)(D) or (E) of this section that had an open thief hatch at some point during the year while the storage tank was also routing emissions to a vapor recovery system and/or a flare.”

k. On page 42309, in the second column, paragraph (l)(3)(iii) is corrected to read:

“(iii) Number of well testing days for the tested well in the calendar year. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that the well is a wildcat well or delineation well. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in paragraph (cc) of this section the number of well testing days for the tested well.”

l. On page 42309, in the third column, paragraph (l)(4)(iv) is corrected to read:

“(iv) Average annual production rate for the tested well, in actual cubic feet per day. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that the well is a wildcat well or delineation well. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in paragraph (cc) of this section the measured average annual production rate for the tested well.”

m. On page 42310, in the second column, paragraph (m)(7)(iii) is corrected to read:

n. On page 42311, in the third column, paragraph (n)(14) is corrected to read:

o. On page 42315, in the first column, paragraph (q)(2)(iv) is corrected to read:

p. On page 42317, beginning in the third column, paragraph (z)(2) introductory text is corrected to read:

q. On page 42318, in the third column, paragraph (aa)(3) introductory text is corrected to read:

For reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 98 is amended by making the following correcting amendments:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order ( Report and Order ), in CG Docket Nos. 22-408, 03-123, and 13-24; FCC 24-81, adopted and released on July 31, 2024. The Commission previously sought comment on these issues in a notice of proposed rulemaking, released on December 22, 2022, and published at 88 FR 7049, February 2, 2023 ( NPRM ). The full text of this document can be accessed electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-81A1.pdf or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at: www.fcc.gov/ecfs. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to: fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at: (202) 418-0530 (voice).

1. Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 225, requires the Commission to ensure that telecommunications relay services (TRS) are available to persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind or have speech disabilities, “to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner.” TRS are defined as “telephone transmission services” enabling such persons to communicate by wire or radio “in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of a hearing individual who does not have a speech disability to communicate using voice communication services.” IP CTS, a form of TRS, permits an individual who can speak but who has difficulty hearing over the telephone to use a telephone and an internet Protocol (IP)-enabled device via the internet to simultaneously listen to the other party and read captions of what the other party is saying. IP CTS is supported entirely by the TRS Fund, which is composed of mandatory contributions collected from telecommunications carriers and Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers based on a percentage of each company's annual revenue. IP CTS providers receive monthly payments from the TRS Fund to compensate them for the reasonable cost of providing the service, in accordance with a per-minute compensation formula approved by the Commission.

2. Before 2020, IP CTS captions were produced by a CA, usually with the CA repeating (“revoicing”) a caller's speech into an ASR program, which then converted the CA's speech to text. In 2018, the Commission ruled that IP CTS also could be provided on a fully automatic basis, using only ASR technology to generate captions, without the participation of a CA.

3. Before 2018, compensation for IP CTS providers was determined by a proxy method, known as the Multistate Average Rate Structure (MARS) methodology, in which compensation was set equal to the average per-minute payment by state TRS programs to providers of an analogous service, Captioned Telephone Service (CTS). In 2018, the Commission determined that this approach had resulted in providers receiving compensation substantially higher than the industry average cost to provide IP CTS. Therefore, the Commission adopted a different methodology, setting compensation based on the weighted average of the actual allowable costs reported by providers (that is, total allowable expenses of all providers divided by total IP CTS minutes). In the 2020 IP CTS Compensation Order, published at 85 FR 64971, October 14, 2020, the Commission considered whether to adopt a separate compensation formula for calls captioned without CA involvement, to address what appeared to be the substantially lower average cost of ASR-only captioning. However, the Commission concluded it did not yet have sufficient data from the provision of fully automatic IP CTS to accurately estimate the relevant costs.

4. On December 22, 2022, the Commission released an NPRM seeking comment on establishing a revised IP CTS compensation plan. The Commission proposed to apply different compensation formulas to the provision of CA-assisted and ASR-only IP CTS and sought comment on additional issues potentially affecting the compensation formulas, including the appropriate application of such formulas; identifying the costs attributable to ASR-only captioning; whether to adjust certain allowable-cost criteria and the allowed operating margin; calculation of average per-minute cost and compensation level(s); the duration of the compensation period; adjustment factors for inflation or productivity; and alternatives to reasonable-cost-based compensation.

5. The Need for Separate Rates. The Commission amends its rules to establish separate rates for CA-assisted and ASR-only IP CTS. Historically, while the Commission has applied separate compensation rates to different relay services, the Commission has rarely applied separate rates to different methods of providing a single relay service. In this instance, however, the record supports the Commission's initial view that special considerations warrant the application of different compensation formulas to the CA-assisted and ASR-only modes of providing IP CTS. The record also supports the concern that continued application of a single formula may lead to waste of TRS Fund resources and increase the risk of fraud and abuse. Deferring the adoption of separate formulas would prolong the adverse effects of the single rate and discourage providers from continuing to offer CA-assisted captioning, reducing the availability of a service mode that continues to be preferred for some calls.

6. Cost Difference. The updated cost reports confirm that there is a substantial cost difference between ASR-only and CA-assisted IP CTS. For 2023, historical allowable expenses reported by providers average approximately $0.60 per minute for ASR-only IP CTS and $1.04 per minute for CA-assisted IP CTS, a cost difference of $0.44 per minute. For 2024, providers' projected allowable expenses average approximately $0.65 per minute for ASR-only IP CTS and $1.32 per minute for CA-assisted IP CTS, a cost difference of $0.67 per minute.

7. Benefits of CA-Assisted Service. The record also confirms that, while consumers increasingly select ASR-only captioning when offered a choice, CA-assisted captioning continues to be preferred for some portion of IP CTS calls. Further, some research indicates that ASR technology may show algorithmic bias in the accuracy with which it transcribes voices and that the participation of CAs may improve the accuracy of captioning for a substantial portion of calls. Establishing separate formulas that better reflect the cost difference between ASR-only and CA-assisted service will strengthen the incentive for providers to continue providing CA-assisted captions when preferred by the consumer or needed for high-quality service. Conversely, maintaining a single rate is likely to reinforce what appears to be a substantial incentive for providers to limit the use of the CA-assisted mode, even where a consumer would prefer it. Once ASR-only service was introduced by most providers, it quickly became the most commonly used service mode—averaging 43.5% of compensable minutes in 2022, 74.6% in 2023, and a projected 84.5% in 2024. Although the percentage of ASR-only use is different for each provider, as of December 2023, average CA-assisted usage (as a percentage of total minutes) is substantially higher for providers that offer consumers a choice of service mode than for providers that unilaterally determine the service mode.

8. TRS Fund Stewardship Concerns. The current single rate of $1.30 per minute became effective July 1, 2021, when approximately 15% of IP CTS minutes were ASR-only. As the volume of ASR-only service has increased, the average per-minute cost of IP CTS has declined, resulting in excessive compensation at the current single rate. In 2023, compensation for ASR-only minutes produced an operating margin of $0.70 per minute—116.7% above expenses. Moving ASR-only compensation closer to actual cost will conserve the TRS Fund and may decrease the potential incentive for a provider to engage in fraudulent practices.

9. Need for Metrics. Various parties argue that it would be better as a matter of policy and good governance for the Commission to establish service quality metrics before resetting IP CTS compensation rates. Progress has been made toward establishing metrics. In February 2023, the MITRE Corporation (MITRE), in its capacity as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, formed a working group to develop a recommendation on metrics and measures for IP CTS service quality. The working group, composed of community advocates, IP CTS providers, academia, and subject matter experts from related industries, was tasked by MITRE to: identify and define measures that can be used to quantify and compare caption quality as it relates to effective communication; propose methods for assessing IP CTS using these measures; and identify potential criteria for establishing meaningful thresholds for acceptable caption quality. The working group's report, completed June 5, 2024, includes six recommendations for further study to establish metrics:

• Work with an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-certified standards developer to initiate a process to formalize caption quality standards;

• Continue to refine measures and metrics as technology improves, while recognizing that no single measure reflects caption quality for all users, and that there is a distinction between what is feasible today and what is needed for full functional equivalence;

• Adopt a more transparent testing framework, as described in the report;

• Use the recommended testing framework to measure caption accuracy, caption delay, non-speech information, and punctuation and formatting;

• Provide more transparency for research plans and results; and

• Perform additional research to improve measures, identify appropriate metrics, and establish thresholds for acceptable caption quality.

10. By reaching consensus on a number of issues that had been the subject of dispute among commenters on the Telephone Caption Metrics NPRM, published at 86 FR 7681, February 1, 2021, the working group may have laid the foundation for ultimate adoption of caption quality metrics. However, it is unnecessary—and would not be appropriate—for the Commission to defer the adoption of revised compensation formulas until metrics are in place. The Commission need not resort to metrics to recognize that the current compensation rate for ASR-only service is unreasonably high. Continuing to support ASR-only IP CTS at this rate would be inconsistent with responsible stewardship of the TRS Fund.

11. One commenter's expert suggests that rate-setting should be delayed because the compliance cost of meeting such metrics are unknown today. The Commission's exogenous cost recovery criteria provide a mechanism for recovery of such compliance costs in appropriate circumstances.

12. In addition, continuing to pay a single rate for IP CTS, regardless of the captioning mode, inherently encourages providers to increase or promote even more use of lower-cost ASR-only captioning, regardless of whether the quality is better or worse than higher-cost CA-assisted captioning. Adopting bifurcated compensation rates will mitigate such incentives pending further information about the relative quality of the two service modes.

13. Reliability of Cost Data. Several commenters argued that the cost and demand data then available—consisting of historical cost and demand for 2021 and 2022 and projected cost and demand for 2023 and 2024—were insufficiently reliable to support a revised compensation plan, and especially the application of different rates to ASR-only and CA-assisted IP CTS. For example, it was argued that historical cost and demand data for 2021 and 2022 were unreliable due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the demand for IP CTS and that there was insufficient experience with ASR-only service to enable the Commission to reliably estimate its cost. However, now that the record has been updated to include providers' cost and demand reported in February 2024, which includes historical cost and demand for 2022 and 2023 and projections for 2024 and 2025, these arguments for further delay are less applicable.

14. The current record also suggests that any pandemic-related effects on IP CTS demand and cost have almost entirely dissipated. It now appears that, by mid-2022, IP CTS demand had resumed approximately its historical trajectory. As to the effects of the pandemic on labor cost, in the case of IP CTS, the Commission finds no persuasive evidence of any impact that would render the cost data for 2023 and 2024 unreliable. Unlike the supply of Video Relay Service (VRS) CAs, which is inherently restricted due to the need for highly trained American Sign Language interpreters, the supply of CAs of the type needed by most IP CTS providers appears to be more elastic, and a lasting labor shortage less likely—especially given the shift to mostly ASR-only captioning. The record—which shows that historical CA-assisted costs increased less than 3% from 2022 to 2023—appears to confirm that any unusual upward trend did not outlast the pandemic.

15. Regarding ASR-only IP CTS, an additional year of cost and demand data has significantly increased the confidence with which the Commission can reasonably estimate the average per-minute cost of ASR-only service. The cost and demand data now available include at least 20 months of historical ASR-only data from every IP CTS provider offering service prior to January 2024. This is substantially more than the 12 months of historical data the Commission ordinarily uses in setting rates. Also, because IP CTS compensation rates are set based on industry-wide averages, individual cost and demand variations are less important than they might have been if the Commission had found it necessary to set rates on a more individualized basis. And as noted above, delaying the establishment of a separate rate for ASR-only service will reinforce providers' incentive to decrease reliance on CAs, even where preferred by the consumer or needed for functionally equivalent service. By December 2023, ASR-only minutes increased to an average of 85% of total IP CTS minutes.

16. Additional experience with the ASR-only mode may further improve the Commission's ability to assess its effect on the cost of IP CTS. However, by taking account of current data, the compensation formulas herein will reflect the reasonable costs of each service mode more accurately than the current formula does. Adopting revised formulas also will substantially reduce the current waste of TRS Fund resources (as well as possible incentives for fraud and abuse) and reduce providers' incentive to inappropriately substitute ASR-only for CA-assisted service.

17. A commenter's expert consultant states that setting a separate, lower rate for ASR-only service would discourage innovation in the provision of automatic forms of IP CTS. However, no evidence is presented for this claim, and given the very substantial difference in reported costs for these services, a lower rate can be set for ASR-only without depriving providers of resources for innovative research and development.

18. Separate CA-Assisted Rate for CART-Based IP CTS. The Commission declines to adopt a separate CA-assisted rate for calls that are captioned using the Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) method, as advocated by InnoCaption. The term CART is used in this context to refer to a captioning method whereby a professional stenographer produces captions without any assistance from ASR software. The Commission finds that setting separate rates for the broad categories of CA-assisted and ASR-only methods of providing IP CTS is justified by special considerations, as a limited deviation from the historical practice of applying the same compensation formula to all methods of providing a particular relay service. However, except for the conditional rate supplement discussed further below, which is applicable to any qualifying provider of CA-assisted service, including providers using the CART method, the Commission is unpersuaded that any analogous considerations warrant a further subdivision of the CA-assisted rate.

19. Although the Commission recognizes that the CART method may have certain benefits, the record at this time does not indicate that those benefits are so clear as to warrant giving special support for this approach over other methods of CA-assisted captioning, despite its acknowledged higher cost. The evidence in the record regarding the particular advantages of the CART method is from 2020, and with recent improvements in ASR technology, providers have developed new methods of using ASR with CA-assisted captioning. Thus, there are now several variants of CA-assisted captioning being used by IP CTS providers—as well as variations in the methods used by providers to determine which service mode should be applied to a call. The process of developing metrics and measures for IP CTS service quality is not yet complete, and the current record does not provide definitive evidence as to whether testing of the methods in use today, using improved measurements, would indicate a material, qualitative difference between InnoCaption's performance using the CART method and the performance of IP CTS providers using other methods of producing CA-assisted captions. Further, the efficacy of any particular captioning method is not determined solely by the technology used, but also by the resources and skill with which that technology may be implemented by a particular service provider. Given the statutory mandates for efficiency and technological neutrality, as well as the absence of definitive measurements of service quality, the Commission finds insufficient basis at this time for setting different compensation rates based on the specifics of each CA-assisted captioning method.

20. Separate ASR-only Rates for Fully Automated and “Hybrid” Providers. The Commission also declines to adopt a commenter's recommendation that two different compensation rates be set for ASR-only minutes, based on whether the service provider is fully automated, i.e., does not employ CAs for captioning any calls, or is a hybrid provider that uses CA-assisted methods for some calls and ASR-only for others. The commenter also seems to suggest that a provider that uses CAs for every call should be subject to a different CA-assisted rate than the CA-assisted rate applicable to providers that do not provide CA assistance for every call. Currently, no provider uses CAs for every call; therefore, it is not necessary to address this theoretical concern on the current record.

21. The concerns noted above regarding deviations from the Commission's historical practice are also applicable here. In addition, if the Commission adopted the commenter's suggestion, the vast majority of ASR-only minutes would be compensated under the rate established for hybrid providers. For the same reason, an ASR-only rate based on the average ASR-only cost of the four hybrid providers would be similar to a cost-based ASR-only rate based on the ASR-only costs of all reporting providers. While fully automatic providers would receive a much higher compensation rate for their ASR-only minutes, their higher per-minute costs are likely attributable primarily to the very low volume of minutes projected by fully automatic providers, given the economies of scale that appear to be involved in ASR-only captioning. Therefore, it is unlikely that differentiating ASR-only rates in this manner would succeed in accounting for any cost differential that may be inherent in a provider's choice of whether to use multiple captioning methods.

22. As proposed, the CA-assisted compensation formula shall apply to any call (or any call minutes, if a CA is not present for the entire call) to which a CA is dedicated, provided that the CA is actively engaged in the captioning process. The applicability of the CA-assisted rate will not be affected by the specific nature of the active task(s) performed by the CA during such assignment ( i.e., revoicing, typing the captions, or monitoring and correcting the output of an automatic speech recognition program). The Commission concludes that assigning a CA to monitor and correct any errors in ASR-generated captions justifies compensation at the CA-assisted rate, provided that the CA is dedicated to these tasks from the beginning to the end of the call (or for the entire portion of the call that the provider designates as CA-assisted). However, the CA-assisted rate shall not apply if the CA is monitoring more than one call, or is splitting time between monitoring a call and attending to other tasks, or is only monitoring the captions, e.g., for research purposes, without actually correcting or supplementing the ASR-generated captions when necessary. In such a case, the employee's involvement is more in the nature of general supervision of ASR-only operations.

23. The Commission is also sensitive to the potential risk that, given the substantial differential between the ASR-only and CA-assisted compensation rates adopted herein, an IP CTS provider might have an incentive to hire additional CAs or steer consumers to CA-assisted calls even if consumers would not benefit from such a mode of IP CTS. For example, if such CAs work at home while receiving minimal training and supervision, the incremental per-minute cost (for a low-cost provider) of additional CA-assisted minutes might be less than the rate differential under the Commission's bifurcated compensation plan. Therefore, the Commission delegates authority to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in coordination with the Office of the Managing Director, to work with the TRS Fund administrator to ensure that annual cost reports include information that will enable the Commission to determine the reasonableness of IP CTS providers' practices related to hiring, training, and supervising CAs and to prevent waste of TRS Fund resources.

24. In addition, the Commission reserves the right to revisit and revise the compensation formulas for CA-assisted and ASR-only IP CTS prior to the end of the compensation period, if it concludes that such intervention is called for to achieve statutory objectives. For example, if evidence suggests that CAs are being added to calls primarily to gain the higher compensation rate, without significantly increasing the accuracy of the captions, then—in addition to taking other appropriate measures—the Commission may revise the compensation formulas to correct providers' incentives and mitigate the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.

25. As proposed in the NPRM, the Commission expands the criteria for IP CTS cost recovery for research and development (R&D), numbering, and user access software, harmonizing them with the VRS cost criteria adopted in 2023. See 88 FR 71994, October 19, 2023 ( 2023 VRS Compensation Order ). The Commission declines to revisit the longstanding policy that the TRS Fund does not support the cost of providing, installing, or maintaining customer premises equipment.

26. Research and Development. The Commission revises its allowable cost criteria to allow TRS Fund support for the reasonable cost of R&D to enhance the functional equivalence of IP CTS, including improvements in service quality that may exceed the Commission's mandatory minimum TRS standards. As in the case of VRS, the Commission finds that the current criterion—allowing cost recovery only for R&D conducted to ensure that a provider's service meets the minimum TRS standards—is unnecessarily restrictive. Authorizing providers (as well as Commission-directed entities) to conduct additional research is consistent with the statutory mandate to encourage the use of improved technology for TRS and with the Commission's policy of authorizing multiple IP CTS providers to compete with one another based on service quality. Such competition logically may lead IP CTS providers to conduct research and development on innovative methods of producing and delivering captions, resulting in improved service quality that may exceed the level required by the minimum TRS standards. The Commission also finds support for this change in commenters' recent submissions emphasizing the need to ensure that the compensation plan supports research and development to improve IP CTS. To establish consistent allowable-cost criteria for all three forms of IP-based TRS, the Commission concludes that the expanded allowability of reasonable research and development costs shall also apply to internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay).

27. The Commission also sought comment on whether to adopt measures to prevent waste and ensure that the benefit of the conducted research and development actually enhances functional equivalence. However, the Commission also noted that by using an average cost methodology and setting compensation formulas for multi-year periods, the Commission can provide substantial incentives for providers to use research and development funds wisely and avoid incurring unnecessary costs. The Commission continues to believe that the above incentive structure is a robust safeguard against waste, and agrees with commenters that additional safeguards are not necessary at this time. The Commission stresses that, as with all provider-reported expenses, expenses for research and development to improve IP CTS are allowable only if reasonable. In addition, expenses incurred to develop proprietary user devices and software (or any non-TRS product or service) are not recoverable from the TRS Fund.

28. Numbering. The Commission treats as allowable the reasonable costs of acquiring North American Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone numbers for IP CTS users, in those circumstances where assignment of a telephone number is necessary to provide the service. In 2008, the Commission determined that such costs would not be supported by the TRS Fund, reasoning that they are not attributable to the use of relay service and that analogous costs incurred by voice service providers are typically passed through to their customers. Recently, however, the Commission revisited this issue with respect to IP Relay and VRS, concluding that the reasonable cost of assigning and porting NANP numbers for those services should be supported by the TRS Fund. Recognizing that the Commission's rules require the assignment of NANP numbers to IP Relay and VRS users and that, based on the current record, numbering costs are unlikely to be recoverable from users as a practical matter, the Commission concluded that such costs are now appropriately attributed to the use of relay to facilitate a call.

29. While the most common IP CTS configuration allows consumers to use existing telephone numbers to place and receive calls over a landline voice service, assignment of a new number may be necessary as a practical matter for some configurations of IP CTS—for example, where an over-the-top application enables captioning of calls placed and received on smartphones and other devices. In such instances, the provider may assign a new NANP number to the user, which is different from the user's landline or mobile number. The new number may be used, for example, to enable incoming calls (including 911 callbacks) to be received via the captioning app on a smartphone, rather than the phone's native telephony application. In such cases, as is true for VRS and IP Relay, the IP CTS provider typically does not have a billing relationship with the consumer, and there seems to be little point in creating such a relationship for the sole purpose of passing through what likely would be a de minimis monthly charge for any particular IP CTS user.

30. Therefore, the Commission revises the allowable-cost criteria for IP CTS to allow TRS Fund support of an IP CTS provider's reasonable costs of acquiring NANP telephone numbers when necessary to provide the service. The Commission stresses that the cost of number assignment is allowable only where such number assignment is necessary for the provision of IP CTS in a particular configuration. As noted above, most IP CTS users receive captioning on a landline phone, in a configuration that does not require the assignment of a new telephone number. As with other reported costs, if audits or other review reveals that numbering costs are being reported in excess of reasonable amounts, the excess will be disallowed.

31. The Commission also clarifies that, to the extent IP CTS providers are responsible for delivery of a user's 911 call to the nearest Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), the TRS Fund supports reasonable expenses to connect the 911 call quickly and to automatically provide location data to the PSAP.

32. Customer Premises Equipment. The Commission's rules do not prohibit IP CTS providers or their partners from distributing customer premises equipment (CPE) to IP CTS users. However, the TRS Fund does not support the provision of CPE to TRS users, except where Congress has specifically authorized such support. The NPRM did not re-open or seek comment on this issue. Nonetheless, a number of commenters urge the Commission to revisit whether the TRS Fund should support the provision of CPE to IP CTS users. Because this question does not fall within the scope of the NPRM, it is not necessary for the Commission to address those comments in this document.

33. Further, even if those comments could be construed as within the scope of the NPRM, for the reasons articulated in the Commission's prior orders, commenters provide no persuasive reason to revisit the issue on its merits. The Commission long ago decided that costs attributable to equipment that a TRS provider distributes to a consumer, including installation, maintenance, and testing, are not compensable from the TRS Fund. The well-established distinction in the Commission's rules between relay services, which are supported by the TRS Fund, and end user devices, which are not, is grounded in the text of the governing statutory provision. As the Commission has explained, section 225 of the Act focuses on the provision of relay service, requiring common carriers to provide relay services either directly or indirectly ( e.g., through a TRS Fund-supported provider), and this is apparent from the plain language of section 225 of the Act, which is directed at services that carriers must offer in their service areas that enable communication between persons who use a TTY or other non-voice terminal device and an individual who does not use such device. The Commission has further held that costs associated with CPE are not part of a provider's expenses in making relay services available; rather they must be incurred by consumers to receive these services, just as people who do not use relay services must purchase their phones. The Commission's determinations disallowing CPE costs have been upheld by federal courts of appeals.

34. Contrary to ClearCaptions' argument, a mere analogy between section 225 of the Act and certain provisions in section 254 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 254, carries no legal weight. TRS support is governed by section 225 of the Act, not section 254 of the Act, and the Commission rejects the suggestion that somehow its authority under the former provision can be expanded based on a purported analogy to how the Commission has exercised its authority under the latter provision.

35. In addition, even if the Commission had statutory authority to do so, it is unconvinced that TRS Fund support for provider distribution of user devices—in particular, purpose-built, proprietary equipment—would be necessary or appropriate to ensure the availability of functionally equivalent relay service. Authorizing TRS Fund support for the kinds of user devices currently offered by providers— i.e., relatively expensive, proprietary equipment that can only be used with one provider's service and that has an unusually short useful life—appears inconsistent with the Commission's mandate to make TRS available in the most efficient manner. In the VRS context, the Commission has adopted policies to encourage the use of non-proprietary, off-the-shelf, screen-equipped devices, such as smartphones, laptops, and personal computers, to access VRS. In general, the use of non-proprietary devices for TRS ( e.g., by downloading software applications developed by providers) has several advantages. First, it is less costly, as most people in the United States already own such devices and use them for a wide variety of purposes other than TRS. Second, the use of non-proprietary devices avoids “locking in” users to the service of a single TRS provider, which limits consumer choice and which also can encourage the offering of free devices as an inducement to use a particular provider's relay service. Third, the use of non-proprietary devices avoids “siloing” TRS users in ways that can hinder access to communication technologies available to mainstream users.

36. The record is clear that IP CTS can be accessed without proprietary equipment, by downloading providers' software applications to smartphones, tablets, and laptops. For example, many providers make their applications available on Google Play and the Apple App Store. Although a commenter argues that such applications are generally impractical for seniors (who comprise the bulk of IP CTS users), a survey indicates that smartphone ownership is growing faster among seniors than other age groups, and that as of 2021, 61% of seniors owned smartphones—a percentage that presumably will continue to increase. In addition, reasonable expenses incurred in helping seniors download and use a provider's smartphone application are allowable costs supported by the TRS Fund. Finally, even for those consumers who are unable to use smartphone or other software applications to access IP CTS, it appears that screen-equipped wireline telephones, usable for captioned phone calls (or screens that can be connected to a wireline telephone) are commercially available for home use.

37. User Access Software. The Commission adopts its proposal to allow TRS Fund support for the reasonable cost of developing, maintaining, and providing software and web-based applications that enable users to access IP CTS from off-the-shelf user devices, such as mobile phones, desktop computers, and laptops running on widely available operating systems. This change harmonizes the cost criteria for IP CTS with those adopted for VRS. As with VRS, such costs must be incurred by an IP CTS provider to enable users to connect to its service platform; therefore, they are attributable to the provision of IP CTS. Further, recovery of such costs is consistent with the efficiency mandate, as it supports the use of off-the-shelf IP-enabled user devices to access TRS and decreases consumers' dependence on TRS equipment specifically designed for connection to a particular TRS provider.

38. Consistent with its compensation ruling for VRS, the Commission declines to allow TRS Fund support for the cost of user access software needed for proprietary user equipment supplied by the provider or a third party. While TRS users need a software interface to access TRS, they do not need proprietary devices that can be connected to and used with only one provider's service, nor do they need software designed for such devices. Although the Commission does not prohibit providers from distributing such devices and software to consumers requesting them, it is not necessary to support proprietary devices and software with TRS Fund resources. Further, allowing recovery of such software costs would not advance the Commission's policy to enable users to access TRS from off-the-shelf IP-enabled devices and to avoid dependence on TRS equipment specifically designed for a particular provider's network. If an IP CTS provider supplies user access software for both off-the-shelf and proprietary devices, and the development costs for each type of software cannot be directly assigned, a provider may adopt a reasonable allocation method to separate such costs, to ensure that it does not seek recovery for costs associated with proprietary devices. The provider shall specify the method used in its cost reports, so that it can be evaluated by the TRS Fund administrator and the Commission.

39. Field Staff Visits. While the Commission did not seek comment on the issue of whether providers should be able to recover the costs associated with deploying their field staff, the Commission's ruling in the 2023 VRS Compensation Order sufficiently addresses the issues raised in the comments regarding the treatment of costs incurred by IP CTS providers' field staff. In the 2023 VRS Compensation Order, the Commission reaffirmed that, because the costs of installing, maintaining, and training customers to use provider-distributed devices (or software for proprietary provider-distributed devices) are not recoverable through TRS Fund compensation, expenses for field staff visits for such purposes are not allowable expenses for VRS or IP CTS. In addition, the Commission clarified that the reasonable cost of service -related work performed by field staff during a visit to a new or current user ( e.g., to assist customers with registration, use of the service on a non-proprietary device, or completing a port) is an allowable cost of providing VRS or IP CTS.

40. Cost Averaging. The Commission has broad discretion in choosing compensation methodologies and setting compensation rates within the parameters established by section 225 of the Act. To set cost-based benchmarks for IP CTS compensation rates, the Commission continues to rely on the methodology used in the 2020 IP CTS Compensation Order, in which rates were set based on the weighted average of each provider's projected and historical costs for the current and immediately preceding calendar years (now 2023 and 2024). Under this weighted-average method, the allowable expenses reported by all CA-based and ASR-based IP CTS providers respectively for calendar years 2023 (historical expense) and 2024 (projected expenses) are totaled and the allowed operating margin (determined as a percentage of expenses) is added to total allowable expenses. The resulting total is divided by total historical (for 2023) and projected (2024) compensable minutes of demand for CA-based and ASR-based IP CTS respectively for those two calendar years, to yield an average cost per minute (including operating margin). This average cost per minute is called a “weighted” average because it gives more weight to the per-minute cost incurred by providers with relatively high demand and less weight to the per-minute cost incurred by providers with relatively low demand.

41. The Commission maintains this approach for essentially the same reasons cited in the 2020 IP CTS Compensation Order. First, this methodology has produced consistent and reliable results without imposing undue administrative burdens on either IP CTS providers or the Commission. Second, average-cost-based compensation, especially when applied for more than one year, provides substantial incentives and opportunities for individual TRS providers to increase their efficiency and capture the resulting profits. Third, maintaining a consistent compensation methodology provides a measure of transitional stability at a time of technological change.

42. According to Hamilton Relay's expert, the Brattle Group, averaging is inappropriate for IP CTS because “IP CTS costs do not appear to follow a normal distribution, which typically would mean a few providers with very high costs, a few providers with low costs, and a majority of providers with costs somewhere in the middle of a bell curve.” However, the Brattle Group cites no authority for the claim that cost-averaging is only appropriate when provider costs are in a bell-curve shaped distribution—which is unlikely to occur where, as here, the sample size is limited to nine providers, five of which are very small or start-ups. The Commission is also unpersuaded that there is justification for replacing the average-cost approach with a “mean plus one standard deviation” approach, as advocated by Hamilton Relay. Setting a CA-assisted rate based on this approach would overcompensate providers with average costs and substantially dilute the incentive for higher-cost providers to become more efficient.

43. Tiered or Small-Provider Rates. CaptionMate urges the Commission to adopt a tiered rate structure for IP CTS, or alternatively a separate rate for small providers, contending that supporting smaller providers with relatively high per-minute costs would offer consumers more choice and promote innovation. The Commission adopted tiered rates for VRS due to a combination of specific circumstances that were threatening the viability of competition among VRS providers. In 2020, the Commission declined to adopt tiered rates for IP CTS because it was not persuaded that similar or equally compelling factors are present in the IP CTS market to an extent that would justify introducing the complexities and potential inefficiencies of a tiered rate structure or an emergent provider rate. This remains the case today.

44. First, unlike in VRS, the IP CTS market has not been dominated for a long period by a single provider. The market share of the largest IP CTS provider is not comparable to that of the largest provider in the VRS market. Second, while there are economies of scale in IP CTS, there is little evidence that such economies of scale are preventing the emergence of efficient competitors. IP CTS's record of growth suggests that there are substantially greater opportunities than in the VRS context for a provider to reach efficient scale within a relatively short period of time. Where higher costs are incurred by a relatively large IP CTS provider, it is more likely attributable to business decisions concerning use of contractors as turnkey service providers, prior investments in technology and business processes, and differences in business models, rather than issues of scale. Third, unlike VRS, IP CTS is not dependent on interoperability and does not have other network effects that make it difficult for new entities to enter the market or obtain eligible IP CTS users as customers. Fourth, the relatively recent introduction of ASR-only IP CTS, as well as new methods of providing CA-assisted IP CTS, provides additional evidence that Commission policies are not deterring innovation in this arena. Fifth, the four recently granted applications for IP CTS certification indicate that new entrants believe that additional competitors can succeed and innovate in the provision of IP CTS. In summary, given the relative ease of new entry and the presence of vigorous competition based on service quality, the Commission concludes that the goals of offering consumer choice and encouraging innovation can continue to be achieved without resorting to the ratemaking challenges, complexities, and potential inefficiencies of a tiered rate structure or a separate small-provider rate.

45. The Commission also notes that none of the IP CTS providers advocating a special small-provider rate offers CA-assisted service. In a recently filed petition, advocates for accessibility contend that the TRS Fund should not support the provision of IP CTS by providers that do not allow users to select CA-assisted service. While the Commission does not prejudge this petition, the fact that none of the providers subject to the proposed small-provider rate offers a CA-assisted option reinforces its conclusion that the objectives of section 225 of the Act would not be served by adopting such a rate.

46. The Commission also emphasizes that it is mandated to make TRS available in the most efficient manner, not to ensure that every TRS provider is able to operate successfully, regardless of the cost. A small provider claims that it offers a service of unique value, targeting a younger demographic and offering captioning in 67 languages. However, the Commission must balance the potential benefits of diverse service offerings with the need for efficiency. To the extent that there is significant demand for multiple-language captioning, the record does not show that it cannot be made available by a provider supported by the TRS Fund at the rates set herein, or through other channels. Also, the compensation plan adopted herein, which limits the cumulative reduction in the ASR-only compensation rate during the five-year compensation period, allows all providers of ASR-only service to be compensated at a level higher than the current average cost. Thus, small ASR-only providers will also be afforded a period of stability to support their growth under relatively favorable conditions.

47. Attribution of Expenses to Service Categories. The Commission adopts the NPRM' s tentative conclusion that, when possible, providers must directly assign costs to either ASR-only or CA-assisted IP CTS, and when that is not possible, they must reasonably allocate such costs based on direct analysis of the origin of the costs. Where they could not directly attribute costs to one or another service, most providers have allocated joint expenses based on the share of their IP CTS minutes that are ASR-only or CA-assisted. The Commission finds this to be a reasonable method.

48. Relevant Cost Data. Since 2018, the Commission has established the cost basis for IP CTS provider compensation by averaging providers' reported historical expenses for the prior calendar year (here, 2023) with their projected expenses for the current calendar year (here, 2024). The Commission has found this method to be a useful way to counteract providers' tendency to overestimate future costs. The Commission finds no compelling reason for any substantial modification of this approach. IP CTS providers' cost projections in the record do not include such dramatic variations as were raised by VRS provider projections in the recently concluded VRS compensation proceeding.

49. Adjustment Factor. To ensure that compensation for CA-assisted service in the first year of the next period is sufficient to cover likely inflation-related cost increases (offset by productivity related decreases) between Fund Years 2023-24 and 2024-25, the Commission adjusts each provider's average allowable expenses for calendar years 2023 and 2024 by 3.77%, which is the change from fourth quarter 2022 to fourth quarter 2023 in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) index of seasonally adjusted “total compensation for private industry workers in professional, scientific, and technical services.” This adjustment uses the same index that will be used to adjust compensation for CA-assisted IP CTS in subsequent years of the compensation period. The Commission does not apply an adjustment factor to ASR-only service. As explained below, an adjustment factor for ASR-only cost is not needed for this compensation period.

50. Newly Allowable Cost Categories. Although the Commission revises several allowable-cost categories, the record does not indicate that these changes will result in any significant increase in the estimated cost of service. Previously non-allowable expenses reported for numbering activities are identified by each IP CTS provider in its annual cost report. However, because most IP CTS users do not require the assignment of numbers, average per-minute expenses reported for number assignment are less than $.001 per minute, resulting in only a trivial cost adjustment. In the other categories of previously non-allowable costs, only one provider reported relevant non-allowable expenses for 2023 and 2024, and that provider has stated it was not able to segregate proprietary from non-proprietary software costs, or research and development for proprietary equipment from research and development for relay service. As a result, even this provider did not report any expenses in newly allowable cost categories other than number assignment. Therefore, the changes in allowable cost categories do not result in any adjustment of estimated average allowable per-minute expenses for either CA-assisted or ASR-only IP CTS. For the reasons stated above, costs for customer support provided by field staff remain non-allowable to the extent that they are attributable to installation, maintenance, or customer assistance with provider-distributed devices or software for proprietary devices.

51. Technology Cost. Some commenters argue that the Commission should adjust allowable expenses to take account of an asserted need for increases in technology investment, beyond the amounts estimated in annual cost reports. Given the excess in average TRS Fund payments above reasonable cost for the last several years, the Commission finds it implausible that IP CTS providers have been unable to spend reasonably necessary amounts in technology-related cost categories (engineering and research and development). Due to the extraordinarily high average operating margins recently achieved by IP CTS providers, ample resources have been available to enable providers to purchase any technology they may need or develop it in-house. In 2021, IP CTS providers reported average expenses of approximately $0.93 per minute and were paid approximately $1.36 per minute from the TRS Fund ($1.42 in January-June and $1.30 in July-December), for an operating margin of 46.2%. In 2022, they reported average expenses of approximately $0.83 per minute and were paid $1.30, for an operating margin of 56.9%. In 2023, they reported average expenses of approximately $0.72 per minute and were paid $1.30, for an operating margin of 80.6%. Further, the proliferation of ASR technology in other areas, including captioning for video conferencing and television, is likely to ensure that ASR development costs need not be borne by IP CTS providers alone. As noted above, providers have not reported incurring any additional research and development expenses for 2023 and 2024 in the newly allowable category of expenses for research and development to improve IP CTS beyond what is necessary to meet minimum TRS standards. Therefore, the Commission is not persuaded that extraordinary levels of additional support from the TRS Fund will be needed to assist IP CTS providers in securing necessary technology. In addition, the compensation plan limits the cumulative reduction in the ASR-only compensation rate during the next compensation period, providing an above-cost “cushion” as a safeguard against any unpredicted increases in technology-related cost.

52. CA Cost. Some commenters argue that the current compensation rate is insufficient to support a wage rate for CAs at the level they assert is needed—specifically, the federal contractor minimum. In contrast with the VRS compensation proceeding, the record here does not show that there is a continuing shortage of people qualified to work as IP CTS CAs. Indeed, the recent substantial decline in CA-assisted IP CTS minutes suggests the opposite. On the other hand, the Commission agrees that the quality of CA-assisted service likely will benefit if CAs are paid at higher hourly rates. To this end, the Commission prescribes two rates for CA-assisted service: a base rate, determined using the established average cost methodology; and a supplemental rate, applicable to the minutes handled by those CAs whose hourly wages exceed a threshold amount.

53. Marketing and Outreach Cost. Some commenters contend that the Commission should set rates that provide an additional incentive to engage in marketing and outreach, e.g., to ensure the IP CTS industry invests in growth by reaching and offering the service to more qualifying consumers. They claim that only a small fraction of consumers who would benefit from IP CTS are being served. ClearCaptions blames declining compensation rates for causing a reduction in marketing expenditures by providers. According to providers' cost reports, however, marketing expenditures have increased substantially since 2020, both in dollars per minute and as a percentage of total allowable expenses. IP CTS providers reported spending an average of $.0903 per minute, or 13.0% of total expenses, on marketing in 2023, and projected spending $.1114 per minute, in 2024, or 15.0% of total expenses, in 2024. These percentages are far higher than in any recent year—and will continue to be supported at that level by the rates set in the Report and Order. Given the significant increase in marketing expenditures, the cost data do not suggest a need to provide additional monetary incentives for providers to find new IP CTS customers.

54. The Commission also does not find it credible that, despite the extraordinarily large operating margins (far above the allowed 10% level) actually earned by providers at the current rate, IP CTS providers have been unable to spend what is needed to market the service to likely customers. Nor does the Commission find it credible that IP CTS providers cannot continue to do so as rates are reduced to allow more reasonable operating margins. In this regard, despite some commenters' claims, the number of people in the United States who could benefit from IP CTS is largely a matter of speculation. While ClearCaptions suggests that the estimated 12.8 million U.S. residents with moderate to profound hearing loss are all “potential IP CTS customers,” many individuals who use hearing aids do not need the additional assistance of IP CTS. There are a variety of other sources of communications assistance available to this population, including hearing-aid compatible telephones and mobile phones, specialized high-amplification phones, and increasingly, commercially available ASR-enabled telephones and services. In addition, many seniors with moderate to profound hearing loss may be precluded from benefitting from a captioning service due to vision-related or cognitive disabilities. The Commission is setting TRS Fund support at a level that should encourage reasonable efforts to promote IP CTS among people who can benefit from it, but there is no evidence to support the assumption that everyone with at least moderate hearing loss needs, wants, and is able to use the service.

55. The Commission adopts the proposal in the NPRM to maintain the previously established reasonable range of operating margins (7.6%-12.35%), and the Commission sets the operating margin for the next period at 10%, the same level set by the Commission in the 2020 IP CTS Compensation Order. In the NPRM, the lower bound of this range was incorrectly stated as 7.75%. The Commission finds no reason to change the operating margin from the previously allowed level. In particular, the record does not support arguments that the allowed 10% operating margin is insufficient to encourage capital investment in IP CTS.

56. The current range of reasonable operating margins for IP CTS is based on an average of the margins earned in analogous industries, including government contracting and the professional service sector that includes translation and interpretation services, as well as information technology consulting. For CA-assisted IP CTS, like VRS, labor costs continue to comprise a large percentage of total costs. Therefore, the Commission finds that the current range of operating margins is appropriate for the same reasons cited in the 2023 VRS Compensation Order. ASR-based IP CTS, by contrast, is not labor intensive, as the CAs are replaced by ASR software. Nonetheless, the Commission finds that the current reasonable range, with the approximate midpoint at 10%, remains appropriate for ASR-based IP CTS.

57. ASR-based IP CTS does not depend on labor to generate captions. In addition to saving on labor costs, it requires even less physical plant than CA-assisted IP CTS, thus saving on capital costs as well. Nor is it a very high-risk business. Apart from the spike in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for IP CTS has shown steady growth since 2015. Further, while other businesses may face price fluctuations based on, for example, changing demand and the pricing decisions of competitors, IP CTS providers can rely on government-established prices that are predetermined for a period of several years.

58. ClearCaptions' expert, FTI Consulting (FTI), does not provide a convincing explanation of its view that average margins for the competitive telecommunications firms, or for a mix of firms in the communications and information technologies sector, would provide a more appropriate benchmark. As a preliminary matter, the Commission notes that FTI's initial study of the margins earned by allegedly comparable firms included telecommunications carriers. As explained in prior Commission orders, the operating margin approach was adopted because the Commission recognized that TRS providers are unlike the telecommunications industry, in that TRS is not a capital-intensive business. Any proposed benchmark that includes the operating margins of telecommunications carriers clearly would not be appropriate for IP CTS.

59. While the most recent analysis submitted by FTI does purport to filter out capital-intensive companies from the sample of information and communications technology firms, the use of a benchmark based on the high technology sector remains flawed, for several reasons. First, while ASR-only IP CTS relies on technology, technology costs do not loom large in the providers' cost profiles. Rather, the biggest expense categories in IP CTS providers' cost reports are subcontractor expenses, marketing, and operations support. Engineering expenses—even when combined with R&D—come fourth. Second, the FTI analysis looks at a sample of companies with net profit of up to 100%. The Commission is not persuaded that the companies from the sample are comparable to TRS providers. Third, IT companies typically involve high risk, while the degree of risk faced by IP CTS providers is limited.

60. The Commission does not see a reason why ASR-only IP CTS would have a higher risk level than CA-assisted IP CTS and therefore warrant a higher operating margin. While CA-assisted IP CTS faces some labor market risk, ASR-only IP CTS does not. Both services share a stable demographic from which to draw customers, and predictable support levels. Based on these factors, the Commission finds that it is appropriate for ASR-only IP CTS to have the same reasonable range of operating margins as CA-assisted IP CTS.

61. Compensation Period. The Commission adopts a compensation period that begins the first month after the effective date of this Final Rule and ends June 30, 2029—approximately a five-year period. The Commission concludes that this period is long enough to give providers some degree of certainty regarding the applicable compensation levels and an incentive to improve efficiency, but also short enough to allow timely reassessment of the compensation formulas in response to potential unanticipated cost changes and other significant developments. There is substantial support in the record for adopting this time frame.

62. ASR-only Rate. For ASR-only service, the Commission estimates average cost as follows. First, the Commission totals all providers' reported allowable expenses for 2023 and 2024, respectively (including newly allowable costs that were reported). Next, the Commission divides these results by 2023 and 2024 minutes, to yield average expenses per minute. Then the Commission averages the per-minute rates for 2023 ($0.61) and 2024 ($0.65) to get a blended average of expenses per minute for 2023-24 ($0.63). Finally, the Commission adds a 10% operating margin, for an average per-minute cost of $0.69.

63. Glide Path for ASR-Only Rate. The average per-minute cost (including operating margin) for ASR-only IP CTS for 2023-24 is $0.69. To fulfill the Commission's role as steward of the TRS Fund, it is important to set a course toward a rate reduction. However, the Commission is concerned that an immediate 47% rate reduction could disrupt the provision of both methods of IP CTS by forcing less efficient providers to immediately adjust their spending to reflect reduced revenue. Further, while the Commission has found the current cost and demand data sufficiently reliable to justify setting a separate ASR-only rate, future cost developments for this service mode are not easy to predict, and the bifurcation of the rate itself may cause some cost changes over time. Therefore, the Commission adopts a variant of the “glide path” approach similar to that used in prior TRS compensation proceedings.

64. Under this approach, the ASR-only rate will be reduced by approximately 10% annually for the first three years of the period. The initial ASR-only rate, applicable from the effective date through June 30, 2025, will be $1.17; the second-year rate, applicable from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, will be $1.05; the third-year rate, applicable from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, will be $0.95. For the fourth and fifth years, through June 30, 2029, the ASR-only compensation rate will remain at $0.95.

65. As discussed above, the cost and demand data now available on ASR-only service, which includes at least 20 months of historical data (as well as 24 months of projected cost data) from every mature IP CTS provider, has significantly increased the Commission's confidence that the average per-minute cost of ASR-only service is substantially below the cost of CA-assisted service. But the Commission acknowledges that ASR is a nascent service, that ASR-only cost patterns may change over time in unpredicted ways, and that there is room for improvement in the quality of ASR-only service, which could entail increased cost. To the extent that providers compete to provide a superior quality of service, such costs may be incurred regardless of whether the Commission establishes and enforces quality-of-service metrics. By limiting the cumulative reduction of the ASR-only compensation rate during this period, the Commission is able to leave the issue of quantifying such costs to be addressed in the future, based on actual provider cost reports, should that be necessary. At the end of the five-year rate cycle established in the Order, the Commission will be able to assess additional years of ASR-only cost data and adjust costs as necessary at that time.

66. The Commission concludes that this approach provides a sufficient safeguard against the possibility of unexpected increases in ASR-only IP CTS costs during the compensation period, including any plausible need for additional investment in R&D and technology. In effect, this approach establishes a $0.95 “floor” on the compensation rate for ASR-only service for the duration of the compensation period, rather than the $1.00 or $0.99 “floor” advocated by some commenters. Although advocates for a somewhat higher “floor” contend that their preferred level is necessary to ensure sufficient support for specified (but unreported) levels of marketing and technology expenses, as well as non-allowable CPE-related costs, the Commission rejects these arguments for the various reasons discussed above. In any event, the Commission is not precluded from revisiting the compensation plan prior to its expiration, should that be deemed necessary.

67. A commenter also contends that the floor it advocates is needed to ensure that the per-minute dollar amount of operating margin earned by a provider from ASR-only service is not lower than the dollar amount of operating margin earned from CA-assisted service. While the Commission does not necessarily agree with the premise of this argument (that provider incentives are based on the per-minute dollar amount of operating margin rather than the percentage of underlying cost that it represents), it is unnecessary to decide this question. A $0.95 rate for ASR-only service still provides a substantial cushion above allowable per-minute expenses, rendering it highly unlikely that the average dollar amount of ASR-only operating margin will fall below the average dollar amount of CA-assisted operating margin.

68. CA-Assisted Rate. For CA-assisted service, the Commission establishes a base compensation rate by applying the methodology discussed above. This is a “base” rate because it is subject to annual adjustment. The Commission totals all providers' reported allowable expenses for 2023 and 2024 (including newly allowable costs that were reported), and then adjusts the totals for inflation. Next, the Commission divides the results by 2023 and 2024 minutes, to yield average expenses per minute. Then the Commission averages the per-minute rates for 2023 ($1.08) and 2024 ($1.37) to get a blended average of expenses per minute for 2023-24 ($1.23). Finally, the Commission adds a 10% operating margin to arrive at a base rate. This rate for CA-assisted IP CTS is $1.35, $0.05 higher than the current rate and will apply in the first year of the new compensation period, Fund Year 2024-25.

69. Alternative CA-Assisted Rate Proposals. The Commission declines to adopt the alternative CA-assisted rates recommended by ClearCaptions ($1.58 per minute), CaptionCall ($1.67 per minute), and Hamilton ($1.78 per minute). The rates recommended by ClearCaptions and CaptionCall are based on their requests that the Commission revisit its longstanding policy disallowing TRS Fund support for the cost of provider-distributed CPE, increase support for CA wages, technology costs, and outreach/marketing beyond cost-based levels, and increase the allowed operating margin to the 16-21% range. For the reasons stated above, the Commission declines most of these requests. However, support for CA wages is addressed through a conditional rate supplement, discussed below. Hamilton's recommended $1.78 rate is based on its recommendation to use a “mean plus one standard deviation” approach in lieu of average cost, which the Commission declines to adopt for the reasons stated earlier.

70. Conditional Supplement to the CA-Assisted Rate. The Commission seeks to ensure that IP CTS providers have the ability to provide a high quality of CA-assisted service. The record reflects that some IP CTS CAs are currently paid below the federal contractor minimum wage (currently $17.20 per hour). There is likely a correlation between the quality of CA-assisted service and the amount of compensation that CAs receive. Therefore, the Commission seeks to ensure that providers are able, if they choose, to pay CA wages at least equal to the federal contractor minimum. To this end, the Commission establishes a supplemental rate for CA-assisted service, applicable to any of the four providers currently certified to provide CA-assisted service (CaptionCall, ClearCaptions, Hamilton, and InnoCaption), for those minutes of service for which the CAs producing captions were paid a minimum hourly rate, initially set at $17.20. If the Commission were to set a generally applicable compensation rate for CA-assisted service based on the assumption that, going forward, all IP CTS providers would pay that minimum, the Commission would have no assurance that reality will match that assumption. Especially in the absence of a labor shortage comparable to that affecting VRS providers, the Commission has less confidence that labor market factors will induce IP CTS providers to pay higher wages to CAs. The Commission concludes that, in these circumstances, payment of a higher rate for CA service meeting the stated condition will produce service-quality improvements that are approximately commensurate with the higher cost to the TRS Fund, and therefore will not significantly affect the efficiency with which IP CTS is provided.

71. The record contains limited information on the CA wages currently paid by IP CTS providers and their subcontractors. However, the Commission estimates that if CA wages averaged $17.20 per hour in 2023-24, the average cost of CA service (including a 10% operating margin) would rise by approximately $0.21. To ensure reasonable compensation for providers of CA-assisted service that raise CA wages to this threshold, the Commission adopts a rate supplement of $0.21 per minute, initially applicable to those minutes for which the CA producing captions is paid at least $17.20 per hour. The threshold amount of $17.20 per hour will be adjusted in the second and third years of the compensation period by the same factor applicable to the rates for CA-assisted service.

72. The Commission directs the TRS Fund administrator to issue instructions to the four providers of CA-assisted service defining the method and format by which wage information should be submitted for any CA as to which a provider claims application of the rate supplement. The Commission delegates authority to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director to review and approve such instructions.

73. To prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund, the rule expressly provides that the initial payment of this compensation supplement is a preliminary payment, conditional on subsequent verification by audit that the CAs producing captions for minutes for which the supplement was paid actually were paid the hourly rate claimed by the provider. In this regard, any of the four IP CTS providers certified for CA-assisted service may request application of the rate supplement to minutes for which captioning was provided by a subcontractor. However, the provider is responsible for ensuring and documenting the accuracy of its representations to the TRS Fund administrator regarding the wages paid to the subcontractor's CAs. Further, a subcontractor's CA wages are equally subject to subsequent verification and audit. In such subsequent audit, if an IP CTS provider fails to produce documentation, satisfactory to the TRS Fund administrator, verifying the hourly rate paid to affected CAs—whether employed by the provider or a subcontractor—then the administrator is entitled to immediately reclaim any prior payments of the rate supplement for minutes handled by such CAs, by offsetting such prior payments against any amounts claimed in the provider's next monthly compensation request.

74. When the Revised Rates Apply. To ensure that no party is adversely affected by the timing of the Report and Order, the new rates will not be applicable until the first day of the first month that begins after the effective date of the Report and Order. Therefore, the Commission directs the TRS Fund administrator to continue compensating providers of IP CTS under the current compensation formula of $1.30 per minute for all service provided through the last day of the calendar month that immediately precedes the effective date of the Report and Order. Service provided on or after November 1, 2024, shall be paid in accordance with the formulas adopted in Report and Order.

75. For CA-assisted IP CTS, as a price indexing formula to be applied during the compensation period to reflect inflation and productivity, the Commission adopts its proposal to use the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index for “professional, scientific, and technical services” (ECI-PST)—the same index used to annually adjust compensation for VRS and IP Relay, on the basis that this seasonally adjusted index, which includes translation and interpreting services. This approach is consistent with the index currently used to adjust the compensation formulas for VRS and IP Relay. As with IP Relay and VRS, labor is the largest expense incurred to provide CA-assisted IP CTS and the most likely to cause a cost increase over time. And as with VRS and IP Relay, the ECI-PST index tracks an industry sector similar to CA-assisted IP CTS. The Commission assumes that this index reasonably captures relevant productivity enhancements as well, and that accordingly, it is not necessary to set a separate productivity factor at this time.

76. For ASR-only IP CTS, the Commission concludes it is unnecessary to adopt an adjustment factor at this time. It is possible that a technology-based service of this kind may exhibit productivity enhancements over time, which may more than offset the general inflation rate. However, technology cost is only one component—and not the largest component—of the cost of ASR-only service. After five years of additional experience with ASR-only service, the Commission will be better positioned to adopt an appropriate adjustment factor. In the interim, the Commission concludes that an adjustment factor is not needed, as a 10% annual reduction in the ASR-only rate will leave this rate substantially above average 2023-24 cost through the end of the compensation period.

77. As proposed in the NPRM, the compensation rule also provides for annual review and adjustment of any claims for exogenous cost recovery, in accordance with the criteria adopted in 2020.

78. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.

79. Need for, and Objectives of, Report and Order. In the Report and Order, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 225, the Commission adopts multi-year compensation plans for IP CTS. To provide the appropriate compensation for the provision of, and continued availability of IP CTS, the Commission adopts separate compensation levels for IP CTS using only automatic speech recognition technology (ASR-only IP CTS) and IP CTS provided with communications assistants (CA-assisted IP CTS). Establishing two compensation formulas gives the Commission the ability to encourage the provision of both ASR-only IP CTS and CA-assisted IP CTS, while limiting the burden to the TRS Fund. For ASR-only IP CTS, the Commission adopts a compensation plan that reduces the ASR-only rate in stages, giving the Commission an opportunity to reassess the reasonable cost of ASR-only IP CTS, in light of future developments, before the rate actually reaches the cost-based level indicated by current cost data. For CA-assisted IP CTS, the Commission adopts a compensation plan that addresses cost changes due to inflation. The Commission also updates the reasonable cost criteria to improve the ability of IP CTS providers to provide and receive compensation for IP CTS, whether provided as ASR-only IP CTS or CA-assisted IP CTS. The Commission takes these steps to ensure the provision of IP CTS in a functionally equivalent manner to persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, DeafBlind, or have speech disabilities.

80. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply. The policies adopted in the Report and Order will affect obligations of IP CTS providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for TRS providers. All Other Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard.

81. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. The provider compensation plan adopted in the Report and Order clarifies certain existing reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. The adopted rules establish the compensation structure for IP CTS providers which may impose additional costs for small providers. The Commission retains the status quo of continuing to require IP CTS providers, including small providers, to file annual cost and demand data reports with the TRS Fund administrator. The Commission clarifies the data related to engineering, research and development, and communications assistant costs that shall be collected in the providers' annual cost and demand data filing. While there are no new or additional burdens on IP CTS providers to file these reports, small entities may need to hire professionals to complete cost reports with new formulas and calculations such as the glidepath approach for the ASR-only formula for example, so that they may comply with the adopted rules. These calculations and reports must also be adjusted to include certain expenses that were previously not allowable, such as for research and development to enhance functional equivalence of IP CTS; the costs of acquiring NANP telephone numbers; and the reasonable costs of developing, maintaining, and providing software and web-based applications that enable users to access IP CTS from off-the-shelf user devices running on widely available operating systems. Although the Commission allows IP CTS providers to recover reasonable costs for numbering, certain software, and certain research and development costs, these allowances do not change the cost categories reported by providers. When it is possible to directly assign costs to either ASR-only or CA-assisted IP CTS, providers must do so, and when that is not possible, they must reasonably allocate such costs based on direct analysis of the origin of the costs themselves.

82. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The adopted compensation structure and levels will apply only to entities which are, or may become, certified by the Commission to offer ASR-only IP CTS or CA-assisted IP CTS in accordance with the Commission's rules. The Commission adopted these multi-year compensation levels to compensate providers for their reasonable cost of providing service, to reduce the burden on TRS Fund contributors and their subscribers, and to ensure that TRS is made available to the greatest extent possible and in the most efficient manner. Among the steps taken to minimize significant impact on small and other entities is the adoption of separate compensation structures for ASR-only IP CTS and CA-assisted IP CTS based on their reported costs. The compensation for ASR-only IP CTS will be adjusted over a multi-year glide path. The CA-assisted rate will be subject to adjustment based on a factor that reasonably predicts whether relevant costs will rise or fall in the coming years. The compensation period will be effective for approximately five years, which is longer than the three-year alternative proposed in the NPRM, providing an incentive to improve efficiency and reassess formulas in response to unanticipated cost changes. These actions by the Commission should minimize the economic impact for small entities who provide IP CTS.

83. The Commission considered various proposals from small and other entities, and the adopted rules reflect its best efforts to minimize significant economic impact on small entities. The Commission adjusted the allowable cost categories that it considers in determining the appropriate compensation formulas for the provisioning of IP CTS to allow small and other providers to recover costs and benefit economically from the increased compensation they will receive.

84. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 225, the Report and Order is ADOPTED and the Commission's rules are hereby AMENDED as set forth.

85. The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

86. The Report and Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The final rule implementing Amendment 40 to the FMP established two components within the recreational sector fishing for Gulf red snapper: the private angling component, and the Federal for-hire component (80 FR 22422, April 22, 2015). Amendment 40 also allocated the red snapper recreational ACL (recreational quota) between the components and established separate seasonal closures for the two components. On February 6, 2020, NMFS implemented Amendments 50 A-F to the FMP, which delegated authority to the Gulf states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas) to establish specific management measures for the harvest of red snapper in Federal waters of the Gulf by the private angling component of the recreational sector (85 FR 6819, February 6, 2020). These amendments allocated a portion of the private angling ACL to each state, and each state is required to constrain landings to its allocation.

As described at 50 CFR 622.23(c), a Gulf state with an active delegation may request that NMFS close all, or an area of, Federal waters off that state to the harvest and possession of red snapper by private anglers. The state is required to request the closure by letter to NMFS, providing dates and geographic coordinates for the closure. If the request is within the scope of the analysis in Amendment 50A, NMFS publishes a notice in the Federal Register implementing the closure for the fishing year. Based on the analysis in Amendment 50A, Texas may request a closure of all Federal waters off the state to allow a year-round fishing season in state waters. As described at 50 CFR 622.2, “off Texas” is defined as the waters in the Gulf west of a rhumb line from 29°32.1′ N lat., 93°47.7′ W long. to 26°11.4′ N lat., 92°53′ W long., which line is an extension of the boundary between Louisiana and Texas.

On November 8, 2023, NMFS received a request from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to close the EEZ off Texas to the red snapper private angling component for the first part of the 2024 fishing year. Texas requested that the closure be effective from January 1, 2024, until June 1, 2024. NMFS determined that the TPWD request was within the scope of analysis contained within Amendment 50A, and subsequently published a temporary rule in the Federal Register implementing that closure request (88 FR 83041, November 28, 2023). In that temporary rule, NMFS noted that TPWD would monitor private recreational landings, and if necessary, request that NMFS again close the EEZ in 2024 to ensure the Texas regional management area ACL is not exceeded.

On August 26, 2024, NMFS received a new request from the TPWD to close the EEZ off Texas to the red snapper private angling component for the remainder of the 2024 fishing year. Texas requested that the closure be effective on September 7, 2024, through the end of the 2024 fishing year. NMFS has determined that this request is within the scope of analysis contained within Amendment 50A, which analyzed the potential impacts of a closure of all Federal waters off Texas when a portion of the Texas quota has been landed. As explained in Amendment 50A, Texas intends to maintain a year-round fishing season in state waters, during which the remaining part of Texas' ACL could be caught.

Therefore, the red snapper recreational private angling component in the Gulf EEZ off Texas will close from 12:01 a.m., local time, on September 7, 2024, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2025. This closure applies to all private-anglers (those on board vessels that have not been issued a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish) regardless of which state they are from or where they intend to land.

On and after the effective dates of the closure in the EEZ off Texas, the harvest and possession of red snapper in the EEZ off Texas by the private angling component is prohibited and the bag and possession limits for the red snapper private angling component in the closed area is zero.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.23(c), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the area closure authority and the state-specific private angling ACLs has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because a failure to implement the closure immediately would be inconsistent with Texas's state management plan and may result in less access to red snapper in state waters.

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

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

NMFS closed directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on January 25, 2024 (89 FR 5135, January 26, 2024).

NMFS has determined that as of August 28, 2024, approximately 1,800 metric tons of Pacific cod remain in the 2024 Pacific cod apportionment for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully use the 2024 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) the current catch of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would delay the opening of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 28, 2024.

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

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address (see ADDRESSES ) until September 19, 2024.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.