This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Air Missions (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, pilots do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) derives authority from the Minority Business Development Act of 2021 (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. 9501, et seq., to appoint an Under Secretary of Commerce for Minority Business Development to carry out the Act's activities and initiatives. MBDA's mission is to promote the growth and global competitiveness of minority business enterprises (MBEs) in order to unlock the country's full economic potential. One of the ways MBDA accomplishes this mission is through the funding of a network of Business Centers, Specialty Centers, and other technical assistance programs to provide MBEs with business assistance services and resources.

For a business to access MBDA technical assistance programs that serve MBEs, the individual seeking services must certify that their business is “a business enterprise (i) that is not less than 51 percent-owned by 1 or more socially or economically disadvantaged individuals; and (ii) the management and daily business operations of which are controlled by 1 or more socially or economically disadvantaged individuals.” 15 U.S.C. 9501(9). “Socially or economically disadvantaged individual” is defined in the Act as “an individual who has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias (or the ability of whom to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities, as compared to others in the same line of business and competitive market area) because of the identity of the individual as a member of a group, without regard to any individual quality of the individual that is unrelated to that identity.” 15 U.S.C. 9501(15)(A). Additionally, the Act contains a presumption in which “the Under Secretary shall presume that the term “socially or economically disadvantaged individual” includes any individual who is— (i) Black or African American; (ii) Hispanic or Latino; (iii) American Indian or Alaska Native; (iv) Asian; (v) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; or (vi) a member of a group that the Agency determines under part 1400 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on November 23, 1984, is a socially disadvantaged group eligible to receive assistance.” 15 U.S.C. 9501(15)(B). This presumption was also found in MBDA's regulations at 15 CFR 1400.1(b) and (c), and members of these racial groups are presumed to be eligible for MBDA assistance.

The racial presumptions found in the Minority Business Development Act of 2021 and 15 CFR part 1400 were challenged in Nuziard, et. al. v. Minority Business Development Agency, et. al., in which the Court found any “provision of the MBDA Statute that is contingent on the presumption in 15 U.S.C. 9501(15)(B)” unconstitutional and prohibited MBDA from “imposing the racial and ethnic classifications defined in 15 U.S.C. 9501 and implemented in 15 U.S.C. 9511, 9512, 9522, 9523, 9524, and 15 CFR 1400.1 .-.-. ” No. 4:23-cv-00278-P (N.D. Tex. March 5, 2024). The court's injunction applies to the sections of the Minority Business Development Act and related regulations that require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Minority Business Development to presume that a “socially or economically disadvantaged individual” “includes any individual who is—(i) Black or African American; (ii) Hispanic or Latino; (iii) American Indian or Alaska Native; (iv) Asian; (v) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.” 15 U.S.C. 9501(15)(B). Similarly, the Court enjoined the application of 15 CFR 1400.1(b) to the extent that it imposes racial and ethnic classifications, and designates “Blacks, Puerto-Ricans, Spanish-speaking Americans, American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts” as individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged. Finally, the Court also enjoined 15 CFR 1400.1(c), which designates “Hasidic Jews, Asian-Pacific Americans, and Asian Indians” as socially or economically disadvantaged.

As a result of the Court's decision, MBDA is updating their regulations at 15 CFR 1400.1(b) and (c) to remove the sections that contain the racial presumptions described in the decision above. MBDA also proposes to make a correction to 15 CFR 1400.2(a) pertaining to the definition of minority business enterprise and where it is defined in the Act. The last change pertains to striking out outdated language referring to Executive Order 11625 in 15 CFR 1400.3 because MBDA draws statutory authority directly from the Act and not from the Executive Order. See 15 U.S.C. 9597. These changes will clarify the eligibility requirements to qualify for MBDA technical assistance programs that serve MBEs.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are inapplicable to this final rule because this rule relates to “public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” In addition, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) exempts rulemakings from prior notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds for good cause that such procedures “are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Here, MBDA has determined that there is good cause and that providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impractical because MBDA is required to amend the CFR to implement the holding in Nuziard. The court order requires MBDA to amend the CFR in a specific manner, and there are no alternative ways to make the change other than as implemented in this final rule. Therefore, this final rule is being issued without notice and comment.

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

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

This rule does not have any collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, MBDA amends 15 CFR part 1400 as follows:

The Commission is amending the information in its Organization and Program Management regulations at 17 CFR 200.11 (Head Quarters Office—Regional Office Relationships) to reflect the closure of the Salt Lake Regional Office on October 26, 2024 and to update the addresses of regional offices that have moved.

The Commission finds, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), that the amendments to its rules to update the information for its regional offices relate solely to the agency's organization, procedure, or practice. Accordingly, the APA's provisions regarding notice of rulemaking and opportunity for public comment do not apply. 1 The Commission also finds that because these amendments do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties there is good cause not to provide advance publication of the amendments under the APA and therefore the amendments are effective on December 16, 2024. 2

For the same reasons, the provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act  3 and the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 4 do not apply. These amendments also do not contain any collection of information requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 5 Further, because the amendments impose no new burdens on private parties, the Commission does not believe that the amendments will have any impact on competition for purposes of section 23(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 6

These technical amendments are adopted pursuant to statutory authority granted to the Commission under section 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 23(a) of the Exchange Act.

For the reasons set out above, the Commission is amending title 17, chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations by making the following technical amendment:

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.701 for the San Juan Harbor Christmas Boat Parade regulated area identified in table 1 to § 100.701, paragraph (a), Item 11, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on December 14, 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, Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.701, paragraph (a), Item 11, specifies the location of the regulated area for the San Juan Harbor Christmas Boat Parade, which encompasses portions of the San Juan Harbor located in San Juan, PR. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701(c) all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the regulated area, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, unless they receive permission to do so from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or designated representative.

Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede the transit of festival participants or official patrol vessels or enter the regulated area without approval from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a 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 notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

In the last several years, the Columbia River Marine Transportation System has seen an increase in commercial traffic and vessel size near the Lower Columbia River, thus creating a concern for anchorage capacity around that area. The Columbia River Steamship Operators Association and the Columbia River Pilots formally requested the Coast Guard review and evaluate the establishment of this new anchorage ground to address the safety and navigation concerns with the expanding vessel traffic in the Lower Columbia River. In response, on December 28, 2023, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Establish Anchorage Ground; Rice Island Anchorage, Columbia River, Oregon and Washington” (88 FR 89646). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action to establish this anchorage ground. During the comment period that ended February 26, 2024, we received 39 comments. The Coast Guard opened another 30-day comment period that ended on June 7, 2024 (89 FR 38854), in which we received an additional 3 comments. In total, we had 90 days of comment period and received 42 total comments.

Under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 109.05, the Commandant of the Coast Guard has delegated the authority to establish anchorage grounds to Coast Guard District Commanders. The Coast Guard establishes anchorage grounds under Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 4, 1915, as amended (38 Stat. 1053; 46 U.S.C. 70006) and places these regulations in Title 33 CFR part 110, subpart B. The purpose of this rule is to establish a Federal anchorage ground in the Lower Columbia River to improve safety of navigation by creating additional anchorage grounds for the increased vessel traffic transiting through the Lower Columbia River. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under its authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

As noted above, we received 42 total comments on our NPRM during the 2 comment periods. One comment asked the Coast Guard to consider three observations regarding the establishment of the proposed anchorage ground. First, the anchorage ground depth. Second, a charted sandwave area that intersects the proposed anchorage ground. And third, the boundary coordinates for the proposed anchorage ground are stated as latitude and longitude without a statement of the associated horizontal datum. Another comment made by a self-identified member of a non-federally recognized tribe, asked the Coast Guard to consider all potential impacts to the Green Sturgeon, a threatened species of fish present in the lower Columbia River Estuary. The other comments wrote in support of the proposed anchorage ground and are not discussed here.

The commenter noted there is variation in the depth of the anchorage ground and that some vessels with deep drafts would need to be cognizant of areas within the anchorage shallower than 43 feet. The commenter also asked if there are plans to dredge the shallower areas to a standard depth of 43 feet. The Coast Guard believes the range of depths within the anchorage ground will accommodate a variety of vessel types and configurations. If it is later determined that dredging is required, then 33 U.S.C. 365 authorizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers to dredge within, and adjacent to, Federal anchorages established by the Coast Guard. Environmental reviews and approvals are required prior to dredging in the anchorage.

The commenter indicated that a sandwave shoal formation intersects the anchorage ground. Sandwave shoal formations are common throughout the Lower Columbia River to include the area of the anchorage ground. Presence of sandwave shoal formations have not historically precluded this area from being used as an anchorage ground.

The commenter asked us to explicitly state the horizontal datum for the anchorage ground. The NPRM included the boundary coordinates for the anchorage ground as latitude and longitude without a statement of the associated horizontal datum. In response to this comment, we revised the associated horizontal datum in the regulatory text at the end of this rulemaking. All other regulatory text remains unchanged.

One commenter asked the Coast Guard to consider all potential impacts to the Green Sturgeon, a threatened species of fish present in the lower Columbia River Estuary. While the anchorage ground is located within the Green Sturgeon's critical habitat, this rule will have no effect on the Green Sturgeon or the critical habitat. This rule will not disturb the Green Sturgeon's ability to spawn or forage for food. Moreover, this rule will not create an increase in vessel traffic through its habitat or impede its migratory pathway through the Columbia River.

This rule establishes a Federal anchorage ground in the vicinity of Rice Island, in the Lower Columbia River. The specific coordinates for this anchorage ground are included in the regulatory text at the end of this document.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under 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 location and size of the anchorage ground, as well as the vessel traffic and anchoring data provided by the Coast Guard Navigation Center. The regulation will ensure approximately 1.745 square miles of anchorage grounds are designated to provide necessary commercial deep draft anchorages and enhance the safety of navigation to commercial vessels transiting to, from, and within the Columbia River. The expected impact to navigation created by the establishment of this anchorage ground is expected to be minimal because the anchorages ground is located outside the federal channel and is consistent with current anchorage habits. When not occupied, vessels will be able to maneuver in, around, and through the anchorages.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All guidance set out in Executive Order 13132 and 13175 were followed prior to this rulemaking and there is no objection in moving forward with this rulemaking from a federally recognized tribe.

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 establishing an anchorage ground, Rice Island Anchorage, in an area traditionally used by commercial ships for anchoring in the Lower Columbia River system; and increasing the safety of navigation and anchorage capacity of the Lower Columbia River system. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L59(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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

On December 4, 2024, the Baltimore Office of Promotions notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2024, through 12:15 a.m. January 1, 2025. The fireworks are to be launched from a fireworks barge located in the Patapsco River, in position 39°16′36″, N 07 076°35′53″ W. Hazards from the fireworks display include harm from the accidental discharge of fireworks, and being hit by dangerous projectiles, falling hot embers, or other debris. The Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 300 feet of the fireworks barge.

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

In addition, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the rule must be in place within 30 days of the date of publication to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this December 31, 2024 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 300-foot radius of the barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and of the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 11:55 p.m. on December 31, 2024, through 12:15 a.m. January 1, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 300 feet of a barge in the Patapsco River located in approximate position latitude 39°16′36″ N, longitude 076°36′53″ W, on the Patapsco River. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866 as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been subject to review 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, which will impact a small, designated area of the Patapsco River for a total of no more than thirty minutes of total enforcement-hours during the evening, when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Act, do not, however, apply to rules not subject to notice and comment. As the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here. In the spirit of § 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 30 minutes that will prohibit entry within 300 feet of a barge within a portion of the Patapsco River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because of limited advance notice provided by the contractor and because the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by December 19, 2024 in order to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the demolition activities at the Avon Lake Power Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio.

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 due to limited advance notice provided by the contractor and because the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by December 19, 2024 in order to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the demolition activities at the Avon Lake Power Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 70124, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. The Captain of the Port Eastern Great Lakes has determined that a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 750-yard radius of the Avon Lake Power Plant (located at position 41°30′15″ N 082°03′14″ W) is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition activities at the Avon Lake Power Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Eastern Great Lakes or a designated representative.

This rule establishes a safety zone from December 19, 2024, from 5:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. with a back-up date of December 20, 2024, from 5:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in the event that weather is unfavorable on December 19, 2024. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on Lake Erie within a 750-yard radius of the Avon Lake Power Plant (located at position 41°30′15″ N 082°03′14″ W). All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983). The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition activities at the Avon Lake Power Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the need to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by demolition activities at the Avon Lake Power Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio. This safety zone is also for only 12.5 hours in a limited area along the shore of Lake Erie. Moreover, vessels can still transit through the safety zone with the permission of the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 12.5 hours that will prohibit entry within a 750-yard radius of the Avon Lake Power Plant (Located at Position 41°30′15″ N 082°03′14″ W). It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA (MOTCO) regulated area from 12:01 a.m. on December 12, 2024, until 11:59 p.m. on December 19, 2024. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The regulation for this safety zone, § 165.1198, specifies the locations of the safety zone which encompasses the navigable waters in the area between 500 yards of MOTCO Pier 2 in position 38°03′30″ N, 122°01′14″ W and 3,000 yards of the pier. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.1198(d), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Vessel operators desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must contact Sector San Francisco Vessel Traffic Service at (415) 399-7410, or VHF Channel 14 to obtain permission.

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

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our September 4, 2024, proposal (89 FR 71872). In that document, we proposed to determine that the Evangeline Parish SO 2 nonattainment area failed to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS by the applicable statutory attainment date of April 9, 2023. In summary, our proposed determination was based upon evaluation of SO 2 emissions data and prior modeling for the NAA. Specifically, this proposed determination was supported by data showing that emissions have increased when comparing the 2020-2022 period to the modeled emissions at designation. Based on this increase in emissions, there is nothing to suggest that the area is no longer in violation of the NAAQS as demonstrated by the 2017 modeling analysis for the initial designation of the area.

The public comment period for our proposed determination expired on October 4, 2024. The EPA received no comments on our September 4, 2024, proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

The EPA is finalizing the September 4, 2024, proposed finding, and per CAA section 179(c)(1)-(2), the EPA determines that the Evangeline Parish SO 2 NAA has not attained the 2010 one-hour SO 2 NAAQS of 75 ppb by the applicable statutory attainment date of April 9, 2023.

Publication of this final rule has the following consequences for the State of Louisiana: (1) under CAA section 179(d), the State has up to 12 months from the publication of this notice to submit a revised SIP for the area demonstrating attainment and containing any additional measures that the EPA may reasonably prescribe that can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental impacts as required; (2) according to CAA section 179(d)(3), such a revised SIP is to achieve attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of notice of the area's failure to attain ( i.e., 5 years after the EPA publishes a final action in the Federal Register determining that the area failed to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS); and (3) in addition to triggering requirements for a new SIP submittal, this final determination triggers the implementation of contingency measures in this NAA adopted under 172(c)(9).

Information on Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and how EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) can be found in the section titled “IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.” EPA provided analysis of environmental justice associated with this action solely for informational purposes, and the results of this analysis were addressed in Section IV of our proposal.

This final rule formalizes EPA's determination that the Evangeline Parish SO 2 NAA has failed to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS of 75 ppb by the applicable attainment date of April 9, 2023, in accordance with EPA's obligation to make a determination on attainment by the attainment date in section 179(c)(1)-(2) of the CAA. This action provides notice to the public that the area has failed to attain the NAAQS and informs the State of Louisiana of CAA requirements that the State needs to meet.

Information on SO 2 and its relationship to negative health impacts can be found at final Federal Register notice titled “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide” (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). 1 We expect that this action will not have a detrimental impact on the population, including communities with EJ concerns, in and near the Evangeline Parish NAA.

This action finds that an area has failed to attain the NAAQS by the relevant attainment date and does not impose additional or modify existing requirements. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 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 an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

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

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

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with EJ concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines 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.” The 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.”

Section IV of the proposal for this action presented our EJ analysis, but we did not consider EJ as a basis for this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the populations, including communities with EJ concerns, in the Evangeline Parish NAA. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, which finds that the NAA failed to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.

In addition, this final rulemaking, the finding of failure to attain by the attainment date for the Evangeline Parish SO 2 NAA, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because this action is not intended to apply in Indian country located in the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

This action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act because it is a rule of particular applicability. The rule makes factual determinations for an identified entity (the Evangeline Parish area of Louisiana), based on facts and circumstances specific to that entity. The determination of failure to attain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS does not in itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our September 3, 2024, proposed action (89 FR 71230). In that document, we proposed to determine that the Freestone-Anderson and Titus NAAs attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of January 12, 2022. This satisfies the obligation under CAA section 179(c) which required EPA to issue a determination within 6 months of the attainment date ( i.e., by July 12, 2022). Our proposed determination was based on EPA's previous clean data determination (CDD) published on May 14, 2021;  1 the permanent and enforceable shutdowns of the primary sources of SO 2 emissions in these areas; the available modeling analysis demonstrating that the Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Freestone County and the Monticello Steam Electric Station in Titus County were responsible for almost 100 percent of the SO 2 impacts on the maximum modeled concentrations in each respective area; review of emissions data showing emissions within the Freestone-Anderson and Titus NAA's have been reduced by nearly 100 percent with the retirements of Big Brown and Monticello Steam Electric Stations in 2018 and that no other sources remain that are contributing to a violation of the SO 2 NAAQS in those NAAs; and the Freestone County and Welsh monitors' reported 2019-2021 design values of 5 ppb (7 percent of the standard) and 19 ppb (25 percent of the standard) providing additional evidence that these areas are in attainment.

The public comment period for our proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date expired on October 3, 2024. We received two comments total;  2 one from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) supporting our proposed action; and one that was outside the scope of this action and not related to the SO 2 NAAs or our proposed determination. TCEQ's comment included a request that EPA act on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP revision submitted on March 3, 2022, and we plan to act on that SIP submittal in a separate action in the future. Since there were no adverse comments received, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

The EPA is finalizing our determination that the SO 2 NAA in Freestone and Anderson Counties and the SO 2 NAA in Titus County have each attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of January 12, 2022. This determination is based on primary source shutdowns, available ambient air quality monitoring data from the 2019-2021 monitoring period, relevant modeling analysis, and additional emissions inventory information. This fulfills EPA's obligation under CAA section 179(c) to determine whether the NAAs attained the SO 2 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date.

This action does not constitute a redesignation of the Freestone-Anderson and Titus NAA's to attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The Freestone-Anderson and Titus NAA's will remain designated nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS until EPA revises the area's designation under CAA section 107(d)(3).

Information on Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and how EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) can be found in the section titled “V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.” EPA provided additional analysis of EJ associated with this action for the purpose of providing information to the public in the September 3, 2024, proposed action (89 FR 71230). This action is finalizing our proposed determination of attainment by the attainment date for the Freestone-Anderson and Titus SO 2 NAAs. We expect that this action will have a neutral effect on the communities with EJ concerns, as this action only identifies that the areas attained the 2010 1-hour primary SO 2 NAAQS by the attainment date.

This action determined that two areas have attained the SO 2 NAAQS by the relevant attainment dates and does not impose additional or modify existing requirements. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 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 an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

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

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

In addition, this final action, the finding of attainment by the attainment date for the Freestone-Anderson and Titus SO 2 NAAs, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because this action is not intended to apply in Indian country located in the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 EJ concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines 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.” The 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.”

This action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act because it is a rule of particular applicability. The rule makes factual determinations for an identified entity (the Freestone-Anderson and Titus areas of Texas), based on facts and circumstances specific to that entity. The determination of attainment of the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS does not in itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

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

On August 19, 2024, the EPA proposed approval of the source-specific SIP revision to the Arizona SIP. 1 The SIP revision consists of adding portions of the following three operating permits: P0011602, P0011603, P0011601. The submitted permit conditions ensure that emission reduction credits granted to Waste Management for replacing existing diesel-fired solid waste collection trucks with compressed natural gas (CNG)-fired solid waste collection trucks meet the offset integrity criteria contained in 40 CFR part 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)( 1 )( i ), which requires such emission reductions to be surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable. Although the permit conditions are federally enforceable pursuant to 40 CFR 52.23, approving these permit conditions into the SIP ensures their permanence and preserves their federal enforceability.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, no comments were submitted on our proposal.

No comments were submitted on our proposal. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing approval of this revision to the Arizona SIP. This action incorporates the submitted permit conditions into the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP, which provides the necessary federal enforceability for these permit conditions.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the three source-specific SIP revisions identified by permit numbers P0011601, P0011602 and P0011603 issued to Waste Management, submitted on April 3, 2024. These source-specific SIP revisions incorporate specific provisions from permits issued by the MCAQD to ensure certain emission reductions are surplus, permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 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); and

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

In addition, the SIP 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, February 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. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, “the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment.”

The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Orders 12898 and 14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, the EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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 February 14, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

On August 21, 2023, the EPA proposed to approve Missouri's submitted section 111(d) State Plan with two accompanying state rule revisions and a SIP revision in the Federal Register (88 FR 56787). The EPA proposed to approve both the section 111(d) State Plan with two accompanying state rule revisions and SIP revision together. On February 16, 2024, the EPA finalized approval of the SIP revision to 10 CSR 10-5.490 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers the St. Louis area) into Missouri's SIP (89 FR 12244). In this action, the EPA is finalizing approval of the section 111(d) State Plan and two accompanying state rule revisions.

The proposed rule included additional background information on Missouri's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Rule for the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area. The Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking, includes the summary and analysis of Missouri's SIP Revision. The EPA solicited comments on the proposed approval of the submission and received one comment.

EPA is approving Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan for Existing MSW Landfills (Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan) and two state rules accompanying the plan pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Missouri state rule 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.310 “Restriction of Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers all areas of Missouri except St. Louis) and 10 CSR 10-5.490 “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” (which covers the St. Louis area) provide the enforceable portion of Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan. The state rules incorporate by reference the federal plan located at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO as the underlying rule which implements and enforces the applicable provisions under the 2016 MSW landfill Emissions Guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

EPA's detailed rationale and discussion concerning Missouri's section 111(d) State Plan, including the revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.310 and 10 CSR 10-5.490 can be found in the EPA TSD, located in the docket for this rulemaking.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened August 21, 2023 the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on September 20, 2023. During this period, EPA received one comment that was supportive of EPA's proposed action.

The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's section 111(d) plan and the two state rules for MSW landfills pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf. Therefore, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62, subpart AA, to reflect this action. The EPA's final approval of Missouri's section 111(d) plan will result in the replacement of the federal plan currently in place in the State of Missouri.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri state rules 10 CSR 10-5.490 and 10 CSR 10-6.310, state effective date July 30, 2022, which regulate municipal solid waste landfills. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0199, at https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subparts A and OOO. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices provided that they meet the minimum 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 action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the CAA section 111(d) submission is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”

MoDNR did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its 111(d) plan submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 62 as set forth below:

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

The EPA is required to determine whether areas designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, and to take certain steps for areas that failed to attain (see CAA section 181(b)(2)). The EPA's determination of attainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is based on a nonattainment area's design value (DV) as of the attainment date. 1

The 2015 ozone NAAQS is met at a monitoring site when the DV does not exceed 0.070 parts per million (ppm). This action addresses the Uinta Basin area in Utah, which includes portions of Duchesne and Uintah Counties. The Uinta Basin was initially classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and received a 1-year extension of the attainment date in 2022, making the Marginal area attainment date for this area August 3, 2022. As further explained in the Response to Comment document in the docket, in this action we are denying a request for a second 1-year extension. Accordingly, the applicable attainment date for the area remains August 3, 2022. Because DVs are based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data preceding the attainment date, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year before the attainment date ( i.e., December 31, 2021, in the case of the Uinta Basin Marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS). Accordingly, the EPA's determination for this area is based upon the complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone monitoring data from calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021.

The EPA is finding that the Uinta Basin Marginal area did not attain by the attainment date, because the area's 2019-2021 DV was 0.078 ppm, which is greater than 0.070 ppm. Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the effect of this determination is that this area will be reclassified by operation of law as Moderate on the effective date of this final rule. The reclassified area will then be subject to the Moderate area requirement to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than August 3, 2024.

As a result of the area's reclassification as Moderate, Utah must submit to the EPA the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for this area that satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to Moderate areas established in CAA section 182(b) and in the 2015 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule (see 83 FR 62998, December 6, 2018). The EPA will be establishing deadlines for the Uinta Basin area for submitting SIP revisions and for planning requirements on Indian Country in a separate action.

On October 26, 2015, the EPA issued its final action to revise the NAAQS for ozone to establish a new 8-hour standard ( see 80 FR 65452, October 26, 2015). In that action, the EPA promulgated identical tighter primary and secondary ozone standards, designed to protect public health and welfare, that specified an 8-hour ozone level of 0.070 ppm. Specifically, the standards provide that the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration may not exceed 0.070 ppm.

Effective August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 52 areas throughout the country as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see 83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). In a separate action, the EPA assigned classification thresholds and attainment dates based on the severity of an area's ozone problem, determined by the area's DV (see 83 FR 10376, May 8, 2018). Consistent with CAA section 181(a), the EPA established the attainment date for Marginal, Moderate, and Serious nonattainment areas as 3 years, 6 years, and 9 years, respectively, from the effective date of the final designations. Thus, the attainment date for Marginal nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS was August 3, 2021; the attainment date for Moderate areas was August 3, 2024; and the attainment date for Serious areas is August 3, 2027. On October 7, 2022 (87 FR 60897), the EPA determined that 22 areas, including the Uinta Basin area, did not attain the standards by the Marginal attainment date. All of these areas except the Uinta Basin were reclassified as Moderate by operation of law. As to the Uinta Basin, however, EPA granted a 1-year extension of the attainment date, to August 3, 2022.

The State of Utah requested a second 1-year extension of the attainment date for the Uinta Basin, to August 3, 2023. On December 20, 2022, the Ute Indian Tribe also requested a second one-year extension. 2 Granting this extension would make the relevant years for evaluating attainment 2020-2022. On April 10, 2024 (89 FR 25223), EPA proposed to grant the request for a second extension, and to determine that the area attained by this attainment date based on data from 2020-2022. EPA took public comment on this proposal through May 10, 2024.

The statutory authority for this determination is provided by the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ), including sections 107, 181 and 182.

CAA section 107(d) provides that when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether each area is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and emission control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA section 181(a)(1) requires each area designated as nonattainment for a revised ozone NAAQS to be classified at the same time as the area is designated based on the extent of the ozone problem in the area (as determined based on the area's DV). Classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are “Marginal,” “Moderate,” “Serious,” “Severe,” and “Extreme,” in order of stringency. CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment planning and additional requirements that apply to each ozone nonattainment area based on its classification.

Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA provides that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA must determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based on the area's DV as of that date. Section 181(a)(5) of the CAA provides the EPA the discretion ( i.e., “the Administrator may”) to extend an area's applicable attainment date by one additional year upon application by any state if the state meets the two criteria under CAA section 181(a)(5), as interpreted by the EPA at 40 CFR 51.1307. No more than two one-year extensions may be issued for a single nonattainment area. CAA section 181(a)(5).

With respect to the first criterion, the EPA interprets the provision as having been satisfied if a state can demonstrate that it is in compliance with its approved implementation plan. See Delaware Dept. of Nat. Resources and Envtl. Control v. EPA, 895 F.3d 90, 101 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that the CAA requires only that an applying state with jurisdiction over a nonattainment area comply with the requirements in its applicable SIP, not every requirement of the Act); see also Vigil v. Leavitt, 381 F.3d 826, 846 (9th Cir. 2004). A state may meet this requirement by certifying its compliance, and in the absence of such certification, the EPA may make a determination as to whether the criterion has been met. See Delaware, 895 F.3d at 101-102.

Application of the second criterion differs depending on whether it is being applied to a first or a second extension. 3 For a second extension, the EPA has interpreted the air quality criterion of CAA section 181(a)(5)(B) to mean that an area's 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, must be no greater than 0.070 ppm. 4

We evaluated the information submitted by the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) and proposed to determine that the area met the two necessary statutory criteria for the second 1-year extension under CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.1307(a)(2). We stated that no other facts or circumstances compelled the EPA Administrator to consider information beyond the statutory criteria (see 89 FR 25223, 25226 (Apr. 10, 2024)). But we also explicitly asked the public to weigh in on the EPA's findings: “[t]he EPA solicits comments on this proposal to grant the requested second 1-year attainment date extension . . . and whether there are any particular circumstances . . . that the EPA should consider before granting the request.” Id. We still conclude that the area met the two minimum statutory criteria, but after considering public comments received, air quality data, potential impacts on populations in the nonattainment area, and other relevant factors, EPA is exercising its discretion not to grant the request.

An exercise of discretion is involved in denying or granting an ozone attainment date extension, once the two minimum statutory criteria are met. See, e.g., New York v. EPA, 921 F.3d 257, 298 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (internal citations omitted) (finding under a similarly constructed CAA provision that “[t]he statute requires this showing to be made, but once it has been made, the statute provides only that EPA `may' expand the region, not that it `shall' or `must' do so . . . In other words, this requirement is a necessary but not sufficient condition for expansion of the region”). With respect to CAA section 181(a)(5), the D.C. Circuit has acknowledged that the provision grants the EPA discretion to look beyond the two enumerated factors. Delaware, 895 F.3d 90, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (noting that despite its holding that the EPA was not required to determine every state in a multi-state nonattainment area's compliance with its SIP under section 181(a)(5)(A), “EPA nevertheless retained discretion to consider Delaware's compliance, given that the Act only dictates that EPA `may' grant an extension when the statute's requirements are met”) (emphasis added). The court added that the EPA's exercise of discretion under this provision is subject to arbitrary-and-capricious review, such that the Agency “must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 48 (1983)). The statute does not compel the Agency to grant an extension when the two criteria are met, and it is reasonable to exercise our discretionary authority in light of the Act's goals.

CAA section 181(a)(5), which establishes the extension process for ozone nonattainment areas, mirrors the extension process established in the general nonattainment area provisions at CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), and is appropriately read in light of the Act's focus on the expeditious attainment of the NAAQS—both in subpart 2 specifically  5 and in part D more generally. 6 The ultimate goal of part D of the CAA, which governs planning requirements for nonattainment areas, and the responsibility of states and the EPA under that section of the Act, is to drive progress in nonattainment areas toward attainment as expeditiously as practicable but by no later than the maximum attainment dates prescribed by the Act.

We are denying this extension after evaluating and considering the public comments received and carefully reviewing the area's air quality data. We conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to deny the extension to ensure the expeditious attainment of the NAAQS in the Uinta Basin, and that granting the State's and Tribe's request for a second 1-year extension and finding that the area attained by the extended Marginal attainment date would potentially delay needed improvement of the area's air quality and protection of human health and the environment. As noted in the proposal, we are encouraged by the progress of emissions reductions in the area. However, after reviewing the public comments on the proposal, we agree with commenters that recent air quality concentrations indicate that continued application of the planning requirements of subpart 2 of the CAA, which are designed to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS, would help ensure that those reductions, along with other reductions if they are determined to be necessary, result in attainment of the NAAQS.

As discussed in further detail in the Response to Comments document, monitoring values do show an overall trend towards attainment. But we also recognize the importance and significance of the high ozone levels recorded in 2023. The Uinta Basin is quite unusual among ozone nonattainment areas, in that the area has elevated terrain surrounding a low basin, and in that the highest ozone levels tend to occur during the winter months. Specifically, when strong and persistent temperature inversions form over snow-covered ground in the Uinta Basin, this results in a stable atmosphere which traps emissions and allows them to accumulate and react with sunlight to form ozone. 7 Additionally, because sunlight reflects off snow, under these conditions there is even higher reactivity and thus higher ozone levels. Conversely, in years without these meteorological conditions (such as 2020 and 2021), local anthropogenic emissions typically will not create high wintertime ozone concentrations. Therefore, EPA is concerned that it remains probable that the area will continue to experience high ozone levels in years where these meteorological conditions are met.

Granting the extension and determining that the area attained by its attainment date would mean that the Uinta Basin would remain in Marginal nonattainment, even though the area has experienced significant violations of the NAAQS after the attainment date and likely will do so in the future if the same meteorological conditions reoccur in future winters. Those future meteorological conditions could result in similar violations of the ozone NAAQS again, because none of the specific mechanisms and controls in part D and subpart 2, which require that emission reductions result in attainment, would apply to the area. For example, while Marginal nonattainment areas are subject to requirements such as periodic inventories and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting, the vital nonattainment planning requirements that result in imposition of controls and actual emission reductions, such as reasonable further progress, attainment demonstration controls and modeling, and reasonable available control technology (RACT), apply only to areas classified as Moderate and above. Therefore, if EPA were to finalize its proposed approval of Utah's request for an extension and determine that the area attained by its Marginal area attainment date, the area could continue violating the 2015 ozone NAAQS indefinitely without being subject to any of the CAA's attainment planning requirements and consequences that were designed to ensure that nonattainment areas progress to attainment. Timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS also serves to ensure that communities in the Uinta Basin are not exposed to disproportionate health and environmental impacts.

Accordingly, we are not finalizing the action as proposed, and are instead denying the request for a second extension. Further, we are determining that the area failed to attain by the Marginal attainment date of August 3, 2022. These final actions are within the scope of our proposed action. See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he final rule was not wholly unrelated or surprisingly distant from what EPA initially suggested. In first proposing that Tribes would have to meet the `same requirements' as states, EPA effectively raised the question as to whether this made sense.”); Final rule, Denial of Request for Extension of Attainment Date for 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Nonattainment Area, 81 FR 69396, 69400 (Oct. 2, 2016) (“Implicit in any such proposal to grant an extension requested by a state is the possibility that the EPA may decide to deny the extension, after considering public comments.”). For a discussion of comments received on the proposal and responses to those comments, please see the Response to Comments document in the docket for this action.

If an ozone nonattainment area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and is not granted a 1-year attainment date extension, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the EPA to make the determination that the area failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, and the area is reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to the area's DV as of the determination of failure to attain. Section 181(b)(2)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to publish the determination of failure to attain and accompanying reclassification in the Federal Register no later than 6 months after the attainment date, which in the case of the Uinta Basin Marginal nonattainment area was February 3, 2023.

Once an area is reclassified, each state that contains a reclassified area must submit certain SIP revisions in accordance with the more stringent classification. The SIP revisions are intended to, among other things, demonstrate how the area will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than August 3, 2024, the Moderate area attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Per CAA section 182(i), a state with a reclassified ozone nonattainment area must submit the applicable attainment plan requirements “according to the schedules prescribed in connection with such requirements” in CAA section 182(b) for Moderate areas, but the EPA “may adjust applicable deadlines (other than attainment dates) to the extent such adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure consistency among the required submissions.” EPA will address the SIP revision and implementation deadlines for the Uinta Basin in a separate rulemaking.

The above obligations of the State of Utah do not extend to the portions of the Uinta Basin nonattainment area consisting of Indian country lands within the Uintah & Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe. 8 Section 301(d) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to treat Indian Tribes in the same manner as states for purposes of implementing the CAA over their reservations or other areas within their jurisdiction, and directs the EPA to promulgate regulations specifying those provisions of the CAA for which such treatment is appropriate. 9 Section 301(d) also authorizes the EPA, when the EPA determines that the treatment of Indian Tribes in the same manner as states is inappropriate or administratively infeasible, to provide by regulation other means by which the EPA will directly administer the CAA. 10

EPA regulations promulgated under this authority provide a process for interested Tribes to seek treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) for all CAA purposes except for a specified list of exceptions. 11 In addition, these regulations include a provision requiring the EPA to “promulgate without unreasonable delay such Federal implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality,” unless a complete CAA Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) is submitted or approved. 12 The Ute Indian Tribe has not sought TAS status for the purpose of submitting or developing a TIP for the portion of the nonattainment area consisting of Indian country lands within its reservation. Accordingly, the EPA intends to address attainment planning obligations for the Indian country portions of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation within the Uinta Basin nonattainment area through one or more separate rulemaking actions, in accordance with the EPA's authority and responsibility to protect air quality in Indian country under section 301(d)(4) of the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11.

The level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 0.070 ppm. 13 Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix U, the 2015 ozone NAAQS is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentration ( i.e., the DV) does not exceed 0.070 ppm. When the DV does not exceed 0.070 ppm at each ambient air quality monitoring site within the area, the area is deemed to be attaining the ozone NAAQS. Each area's DV is determined by the highest DV among monitors with valid DVs. 14 The data handling convention in 40 CFR part 50 appendix U states that concentrations are to be reported in ppm to the third decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated. Thus, a 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.071 ppm is greater than 0.070 ppm and would exceed the standard, but a 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.0709 ppm is truncated to 0.070 ppm and attains the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA's determination of whether the Uinta Basin attained the standard is based on hourly ozone concentration data for calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021 that have been collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and reported to the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. 15

After evaluating the comments received, as explained in detail in the Response to Comments document in the docket for this action, EPA is denying the request for a second extension of the attainment date for the area.

Further, the EPA is determining, pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), that the Uinta Basin nonattainment area failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of August 3, 2022. As shown in table 1 at least one monitor in this area had a 2019-2021 DV greater than 0.070 ppm. Table 1 shows the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration and 2019-2021 DV for each monitor in the Uinta Basin areas.

Because of the area's failure to attain by its attainment date, on the effective date of this final action this area will be reclassified by operation of law to Moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Once reclassified as Moderate, this area will be required to attain the standard “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than 6 years after the initial designation as nonattainment, which in this case would be no later than August 3, 2024.

EPA will address whether the area attained the standard by the Moderate date, and any related consequences, in a future action.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Order 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023).

This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This action does not contain any information collection activities and serves only to make a final determination that the Uinta Basin nonattainment area failed to attain the 2015 ozone standards by the August 3, 2022, attainment date, as a result of which the area will be reclassified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standards by operation of law upon the effective date of this final reclassification action.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The determination of failure to attain the 2015 ozone standards and resulting reclassifications, do not in and of themselves create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. This final action would require the state to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy CAA requirements and would not itself directly regulate any small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the Federal government and the states for purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.

This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.

The EPA has identified Tribal areas within the nonattainment area covered by this final rule that would be potentially affected by this rulemaking. Specifically, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation in the Uinta Basin, Utah ozone nonattainment area.

The EPA has concluded that the final rule may have Tribal implications for this Tribe for the purposes of Executive Order 13175 but would not impose substantial direct costs upon the Tribe, nor would it preempt Tribal law. As noted previously, a Tribe that is part of an area that is reclassified from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment is not required to submit a TIP revision to address new Moderate area requirements. However, when the EPA finalizes the determinations of failure to attain proposed in this action, the NNSR major source threshold and offset requirements will change for stationary sources seeking preconstruction permits in any nonattainment areas newly reclassified as Moderate.

The EPA will communicate with the potentially affected Tribe located within the boundary of the nonattainment area addressed in this final rule, including offering government-to-government consultation, as appropriate.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

In the proposed rule we explained that we had considered specific information related to EJ, consisting of an EJSCREEN analysis for Duchesne and Uintah Counties, along with the ozone design values for the area. As explained in our Response to Comments document, we received additional EJ-related information during the public comment period and have considered that information in taking this final action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Our final action is consistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.

This rule is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (CRA) because it is a rule of particular applicability. The rule makes factual determinations for an identified entity (Uinta Basin, UT area), based on facts and circumstances specific to that entity. The determinations of attainment and failure to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS do not in themselves create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 14, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this action 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 this action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble the Environmental Protection Agency amends title 40 CFR part 81 as follows:

EPA is correcting the final rule that published in the Federal Register of November 12, 2024 (89 FR 89459 (FRL-8524-02-OCSPP)) to address two errors where EPA inadvertently omitted important text within the amendatory instructions:

1. The first error appears in amendatory instruction 15a, which directs the OFR to revise paragraph (e)(5) in 40 CFR 745.225, however, since the set-out text for paragraph (e)(5) does not include the subordinate paragraphs to paragraph (e)(5), the instruction should direct the OFR to revise the introductory text of paragraph (e)(5).

2. The second error appears in amendatory instruction 17b, which directs the OFR to revise paragraph (e)(8)(v) of 40 CFR 745.227, however, since the set-out text for paragraph (e)(8)(v) does not include the subordinate paragraphs to paragraph (e)(8)(v), the instruction should direct the OFR to revise the introductory text of paragraph (e)(8)(v).

In FR Doc. 2024-25070, appearing on page 89416 in the Federal Register of November 12, 2024, the following correction is made:

Section 2103 of Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) gives the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating broad regulatory authority to carry out the provisions of 46 U.S.C. subtitle II (Vessels and Seamen), where vessel documentation provisions in 46 U.S.C. chapter 121 are located. The Secretary's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4, paragraph II (92)(a).

The Coast Guard did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) before this rule. As explained in Section IV.F Administrative Procedure Act of this preamble, the Coast Guard finds that this rule is exempt from notice and comment as a procedural rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and for good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

In 2007, the Coast Guard amended vessel documentation regulations to eliminate the requirement to provide certain original documents to the U.S. Coast Guard National Vessel Documentation Center (NVDC) for recording and eliminated the additional fee for filing by facsimile (fax). 1 Currently, Coast Guard regulations allow the filing of instruments, such as Bills of Sale, Deeds of Gifts, Mortgages, and Notices of Claim of Lien, to the NVDC by paper submission or electronically. Regulations on the electronic means for filing specify two technologies: via fax or Portable Document Format (PDF) attachment(s) to electronic mail.

This rule removes references to the specific electronic filing methodologies of PDF and faxing and revises the regulations with more general terms to capture other electronic filing options. It also removes referencing a specific technology that is no longer a part of NVDC's current process, because the system provided to and used by the NVDC does not support fax capabilities.

Electronic filing is not mandatory. With this rule, vessel owners retain the ability to file paper records with the Coast Guard. Historically, paper records that were scanned and uploaded into the system were ultimately archived with the Federal Records Center, in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements. The NVDC still scans and uploads paper records, but, NARA, with few exceptions, stopped accepting paper records as of January 1, 2023. See Transition to Electronic Records, OMB and NARA Memorandum M-19-21 (June 28, 2019). 2 NARA does recognize a possible exception for records of intrinsic historic value to its rule on no longer accepting paper documents. See Federal Records Management: Digitizing Permanent Records and Reviewing Records Schedules, 88 FR 28410, 28412-13 (May 4, 2023) and Guidance on OMB and NARA Memorandum Transition to Electronic Records, NARA Bulletin 2020-01 (September 30, 2020). 3 However, that exception would not apply to the vast majority of NVDC records, if any. Therefore, paper records currently submitted to the NVDC are shelved for up to 2 years awaiting destruction by the Coast Guard.

In response to NARA's paper processing change, the NVDC is maximizing electronic filing capabilities to reduce the need to digitize physical submissions, store the submissions, and ultimately destroy them. Additionally, more general language in the regulations allows the Coast Guard and affected vessel owners to take advantage of developing technologies as they become available for electronic submission of instruments.

Currently, 46 CFR 67.99 requires original vessel build evidence. Without the ability to send original documents to NARA, the NVDC is required to either mail the form CG-1261, the original Builder's Certification and First Transfer of Title (hereafter “Builder's Certificate”), to the vessel owner, or shred the document. The NVDC currently accepts copies of other original documents and ceased requiring vessel owners to submit original evidence of build as of July 1, 2022. In line with this practice, the Coast Guard is amending 46 CFR 67.99 to remove the requirement for original evidence of build documents.

In addition, 46 CFR 67.141(a)(4), 67.167(a), and 67.169(b) currently require an outstanding Certificate of Documentation (COD) be submitted as part of the application procedure for COD replacement, exchange, or deletion. This rulemaking removes this requirement.

On December 4, 2018, Congress enacted the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (CGAA 2018). Section 512 of the CGAA 2018 amended 46 U.S.C. 12105(e)(3)(A)  4 to require vessel owners to notify the Coast Guard no later than 30 days after each change in information that the issuance of a COD for the vessel is based on if it occurs before the expiration of the certificate. The Coast Guard previously revised 46 CFR 67.319 to reflect this statutory change (86 FR 5022, Jan. 19, 2021). With this final rule, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR 67.113(e) and 67.321 to also extend, from 10 to 30 days, the time that a vessel owner has to report a change of a managing owner's address to the NVDC.

This rulemaking will benefit vessel owners in the form of greater clarification by codifying current policy and practice at the NVDC of not requiring vessel owners to mail original build evidence and instruments. In addition, Coast Guard regulations will accurately reflect current statutory periods for vessel owners to submit changes to their address used to apply for a COD. The Coast Guard will also benefit from greater clarity, as this final rule harmonizes the CFR with current practices.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.

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

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this regulatory action. A regulatory analysis follows.

As discussed in Section III, Background and Discussion of Rule, in this preamble, the NVDC no longer sends or receives faxes, leaving PDF attachment to email as the only electronic means of submission. Since July 1 of 2022, the Coast Guard ceased requiring vessel owners to submit original Builder's Certificates to the NVDC, and NVDC began accepting copies of the original certificate. 5 To better implement this change, the Coast Guard is maximizing electronic filing capabilities, although vessel owners will retain the option to submit paper records to the Coast Guard. Additionally, more general language in the regulations allows the Coast Guard to take advantage of developing technologies as they become available for electronic submission of records.

To provide a comprehensive analysis covering both of these programmatic changes with implementation of the final rule, the Coast Guard utilizes two baselines, a pre-program change baseline that represents the state of the world without the program change in 2022 and a “no action” baseline that represents the state of the world without the regulation. According to federal guidelines, the economic impact of the rule should be accounted for in the period in which the changes occur. The rulemaking aligns regulations with current industry practice, which existed prior to the rulemaking. Therefore, the economic impact of the rule, which normally includes costs, cost-savings, and benefits, will be attributed to the “pre-program change” baseline.

The “pre-program” baseline is used to measure the economic impacts of the program changes (a timespan that includes events beginning in 2022 through 2033), and the “no action” baseline is used to measure the impacts of the final rule (a projected 10-year period, which includes events beginning in 2024 through 2033).

Tables 1 and 2 present the overall impacts for both baselines.

This document announces that, on November 5, 2024, OMB approved, until November 30, 2027, the information collection requirements adopted in (i) the Commission's Second Report and Order ( 2022 Second Report and Order ) in PS Docket Nos. 15-80 and 13-75, ET Docket No. 04-35, FCC 22-88, adopted on November 17, 2022, and released on November 18, 2022, and, (ii) the Commission's Report and Order ( 2023 Report and Order ) in PS Docket Nos. 23-5 and 15-80, WC Docket No. 18-336, FCC 23-57, adopted on July 20, 2023, and released on July 21, 2023.

In the 2022 Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted rule amendments to 47 CFR 4.9 (by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c)(2)(iv); adding a heading for paragraph (e); and revising paragraphs (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), (g)(1)(i), and (h)) that required review by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Those amendments were included in the Final Rules section of 2022 Second Report and Order with an amendatory instruction that they be delayed indefinitely (because they required OMB approval before they could be made effective). The 2023 Report and Order also adopted amendments to 47 CFR 4.9 (by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (c)(2)(iv), (e)(1)(v), (f)(4), and (g)(1)(i) and adding paragraph (i)) that required review by OMB pursuant to the PRA. Those amendments were included in the Final Rules section of 2023 Report and Order with an amendatory instruction that they be delayed indefinitely (because they required OMB approval before they could be made effective). The amendments to § 4.9 adopted in the 2023 Report and Order are additive to and to not conflict with the amendments to § 4.9 adopted in the 2022 Second Report and Order.

The amendments identified herein adopted in the 2022 Second Report and Order and 2023 Report and Order were submitted for OMB review as a single information collection. Because OMB has approved this information collection, the Commission is setting an effective date for the above-cited rule revisions of 120 days following publication of this document in the Federal Register .

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens cause thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. Please include OMB Control Number, 3060-0484, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on November 5, 2024, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 4.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0484.

The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0484.

OMB Approval Date: November 5, 2024.

OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2027.

Title: Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,224 respondents; 201,848 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour-2 hours (average per response).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and Annual Reporting Requirements and Recordkeeping Requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory and Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(n), 4(o), 201(b), 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 251(e)(4), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 316, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), (n), & (o), 201(b), 214, 218, 251(e)(3), 251(e)(4), 254, 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 332, 403, 615, 615a-1, and 1302.

Total Annual Burden: 398,319 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Needs and Uses: Through this information collection, data received facilitates the Commission's monitoring, analysis, and investigation of the reliability and security of voice, paging, and interconnected voice over internet protocol communications services. Data received through this information collection also helps the Commission identify and act on potential threats to our Nation's telecommunications infrastructure. Moreover, the Commission uses this information collection to identify the duration, magnitude, root causes, contributing factors with respect to significant outages; and to identify outage trends; support service restoration efforts; and help coordinate with public safety officials during times of crisis. The Commission uses the information collection to draw lessons learned in order to foster a better understanding of significant outages' root causes, and to explore preventive measures in the future so as to mitigate the potential scale and impact of such outages.

Harmonizing the existing notification requirements for covered 911 service providers and originating service providers (OSPs) will simplify compliance for providers and reduce confusion for 911 special facilities. Among other harmonization requirements, the initial notification requirements are intended to provide preliminary notice of a potential problem to a 911 special facility so that the 911 special facility can, as quickly as possible, mitigate the impacts of the outage, and alert the public to alternative means of emergency services.

The new requirement that covered 988 service providers and OSPs notify 988 special facilities about outages that potentially affect them serves these same purposes with respect to the availability of the 988 Lifeline, including providing notice to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Veterans Affairs Administration, and the 988 Lifeline administrator when an outage that potentially affects a 988 special facility occurs.

Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ), and in accordance with the Reorganization Plan Number 4 of 1970 (84 Stat. 2090), NOAA administers a voluntary Seafood Inspection Program (SIP or Program) which offers inspection and grading services for seafood and other marine products, as well as audit and consultative services to domestic and international processors, importers, and international competent food safety authorities. SIP also authorizes the use of certain marks and shields to processors meeting specific safety, quality, and other program requirements. The existing regulations codified at 50 CFR part 260 have not been significantly revised or updated since NMFS first issued them in 1971, 36 FR 21037 (November 3, 1971), and currently do not reflect the changes in industry practices or the expanding role of SIP since that time. NMFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (89 FR 31690, April 25, 2024) and requested comments for 30 days. SIP received six public comments during the 30-day comment period. We reviewed and considered all comments received in development of this final rule. All substantive comments received on the proposed rule are addressed in this final rule in the Comments and Responses section.

We published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 25, 2024 (89 FR 31690), with a 30-day comment period. During the 30-day comment period, we received six comment submissions. The comments received were from stakeholders and interested parties on focused areas of the Seafood Inspection Program. NMFS appreciates the thoughtful comments representing a diverse set of views and has considered them thoroughly. The comments generally expressed support of the action by the NMFS Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce to revise its current implementing regulations to improve the uniformity and reliability of seafood inspection services by adopting recognized best practices for inspection. There was general support by commenters for the intent to modernize and move language from regulation to the online SIP Manual. There was also general support for simplifying the administrative, inspection, and certification procedures, updating and consolidating grade standards wherever possible, and SIP's effort to improve the uniformity and reliability of seafood inspections services. Our responses to all comments that are pertinent to this action are described below.

Comment 1: Some commentators recommended that periods of public comment be longer than 30 days, and that NMFS should give all operational alterations, including ones such as this proposed rule, at least nine weeks of industry consideration. There was also a request for industry-facing seminars/informational sessions, as well as consideration for seasonal timing impacts and that all change actions allow for industry dialogue and participation going forward.

Response: A 30-day comment period is generally considered by courts to be sufficient to allow for meaningful public participation pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Longer comment periods may be necessary where a rule is technically complex or lengthy. However, as the proposed rule codified NMFS's current practices and did not make any changes to NMFS's operation, a longer comment period was not necessary. NMFS does agree that before implementing any changes to policy that will affect how industry operates or responds, they will notify industry and engage in dialogue to ensure all parties understand the changes and have sufficient time to implement any changes required.

Comment 2: One commenter asked NMFS to focus on Gulf shrimp and raise tariffs against Thai shrimp.

Response: The authority to raise tariffs against any country or product is outside the scope and regulatory authority of the NMFS SIP.

Comment 3: One commenter asked whether NMFS conferred with FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regarding definitions of “fish”, “fishery product”, “inspection service”, “product”, “wholesome.” Similarly, another commenter recommended examination of the final definitions for clarity, as well as the inclusion of sourcing for each new definition implemented in the event industry needs additional guidance.

Response: NMFS confirms that the FDA reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed rule prior to publication. The definitions used in the proposed rule are also in alignment with the definitions in current regulations, both under 50 CFR part 260 and 21 CFR parts 123 and 117. In the proposed rule, the definition for “fish” was revised from “. . . other than birds or mammals, and all mollusks, . . .” to “. . . other than birds or mammals, and including all mollusks, . . .” to help clarify that all mollusks are defined as fish, which has been a source of confusion since the HACCP regulations in 21 CFR part 123 were implemented. The definition of fish was also expanded to include “other non-food uses.” These definitions remain unchanged in the final rule. NMFS disagrees with the need to source definitions, as the terms defined here pertain specifically to use within this regulation and source definitions to the use of these terms in other contexts would not provide accurate guidance to industry.

Comment 4: One commenter noted that some definitions refer to “animal” consumption (fish, inspection services) and others do not include “animal consumption” (fishery product, product, wholesome).

Response: The inclusion of “animal” or “animal consumption” in definitions varies based on the end use of the product. The definitions for “fish” and “inspection services” identify that the end use of the product could be for consumption other than as human food. NMFS inspects and certifies a variety of non-human food fishery products, whether they be for animal feed, use in making animal food, or other industrial uses. The terms “fishery product” and “wholesome” refer specifically to the end use being for human consumption. The definition for “product” does not include the word “animal”, but conveys that end use with the phrase “whether or not destined for human consumption”.

Comment 5: Several commenters asked how NMFS will notify industry of changes to the online manual. For example, one commenter suggested highlighting or striking out changes, or listing date(s) of revisions on each title page for transparency. Another commenter suggested that SIP establish a method of providing a summary of any modifications to the NMFS Fishery Products Inspection Manual (SIP Manual or Manual) so stakeholders are aware of and can locate the changes. A third commenter recommended a regular update period for the Manual, wherein industry may expect to review potential new Manual language annually or biannually, rather than needing to react to NMFS actions on short timelines when they are communicated. Another commenter recommended that amendments to the Manual or other policy changes be marked and displayed in ways that make it easy for users to see what is changing and how.

Response: NMFS agrees that changes to the online SIP Manual should be communicated to the public in a timely manner and in a transparent way. However, NMFS declines to adopt the suggestion to strike out or highlight changes in the Manual as this could create confusion and make the Manual more difficult to navigate. Additionally, restricting updates to only once or twice a year would make the online format less flexible, undermining NMFS' goal for the Manual to remain current and up to date. Therefore, NMFS will continue to make updates when needed, but will make sure to notify all stakeholders and/or staff members when changes are made that affect the way in which they interact with NMFS SIP. Currently, NMFS adds revision dates to chapter and section headings when changes occur to highlight such updates for stakeholders and will continue to assess practices which support transparency.

Comment 6: Several commenters noted that moving procedural changes into the Manual will make future changes easier, but is less transparent than the formal rulemaking process and can limit the opportunity for stakeholder engagement afforded through the open comment periods of FR notices. Similarly, some commentators noted that the move to the online Manual has led to confusion as to how and when updates take place.

Response: Proposed changes to NMFS SIP policy or operational procedures that run counter to current regulations will continue to follow the formal rulemaking process, including public notice and opportunity for comment. Changes to NMFS SIP's day-to-day operational procedures or policies that do not run counter to current regulations may be updated in the Manual as needed, with ample notice of these changes given to the public. Changes such as updates to the SIP fees schedule or new Grade Standards, will also continue to be published in the Federal Register .

Comment 7: One commenter requested that NMFS allow users time to make changes to their programs before implementing compliance actions whenever the Manual is updated.

Response: NMFS agrees that whenever the Manual is updated with changes required to operational procedures, time will be given to stakeholders to fully understand and implement the changes. NMFS also will continue to provide outreach and training when changes necessitate a more involved response from stakeholders.

Comment 8: One commenter wrote that NMFS should hold informational sessions for users when making revisions so the users can better understand the new or revised criteria.

Response: NMFS agrees that outreach is beneficial to both stakeholders and SIP when substantial changes to a system or procedure are enacted, and will continue to engage in such activities with stakeholders when warranted.

Comment 9: One commenter wrote that NMFS must ensure that latest standards and Sensory Quality indicators are readily available to users so they can meet the criteria.

Response: NMFS agrees that all standards and criteria must be available and informed to users prior to their implementation, and will continue to ensure that happens. The SIP Manual is updated in real-time as new methodologies and standards are developed and employed, and whenever clarification is required. Emailed notices go out broadly to industry members and program participants when these changes occur, and all relevant standards and criteria are housed in the online Manual, which is available to the public on the NMFS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/seafood-commerce-certification/seafood-inspection-manual.

Comment 10: One commenter wrote that moving to the proposed “one size fits all” sampling plan of six and zero is a significant departure from the current sampling plans. The proposed changes to the sampling plan will not have the positive impact for firms who currently use a sampling plan with a sample size of three or four. A sampling plan allowing for more samples and specific number of non-conformances should still be allowed. Further, National Fisheries Institute disagrees with the assessment that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. The proposed sampling plan of six and zero will influence inspection and destructive sampling costs for many SIP participants in a negative way.

Response: NMFS previously experimented with the model sampling plan of six and zero (sample size of six with zero non-conforming units) and found that it did not have the overall positive impact expected. Therefore, NMFS has decided not to go forward with the proposed six and zero sampling plan, and will continue to use the single and multiple sampling plans formerly found in 50 CFR 260.61, which are also found in the Manual. NMFS also allows the use of other validated and internationally recognized sampling plans, and participants are encouraged to use the sampling plan that works best for their situation.

Comment 11: One commenter suggested that NMFS consider changing the way we test for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP).

Response: The mouse bioassay is the current regulatory method for determining the presence of PSP and other toxins in shellfish in the United States, and is recognized internationally. Changing the approved methodology falls outside the scope of NMFS' regulatory authority.

Comment 12: Several commenters asked how NMFS would cover other marine ingredients, such as algae and kelp, which are not covered by FDA under 21 CFR part 123.

Response: NMFS, as the U.S. Competent Authority for export health certification for fishery products for human consumption, has for years been providing export certification for products such as edible algae and kelp when requested by stakeholders, in an effort to keep trade flowing. This expansion of NMFS to non-consumer and other marine products is an opportunity to facilitate trade for U.S. businesses. The inclusion of non-human-consumption fish and fishery products and other marine ingredients to the program allows U.S. businesses to compete better with industry members from other countries in providing these valuable resources to the worldwide marketplace. Adding inspection and certification services for non-food, by-products, and other marine ingredients in this regulation codifies the ability of NMFS to provide services to businesses trading in marine products that traditionally the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) do not provide.

Comment 13: One commenter wrote that NMFS should be more transparent with costs and billing invoices and be more aware of their impact to industry users. Another commenter requested further consideration into how the payment structure can be adjusted to allow industry to better anticipate and absorb these costs, as well as implementing controls to minimize overtime and holiday work by auditors.

Response: NMFS strives to maintain fairness and equity in all billing processes. When an inspector travels to conduct multiple audits at multiple facilities in one geographic location, the total travel expenses are divided equally among all facilities involved in that trip, while the actual audit time per facility is charged directly. The regional inspection offices manage their personnel and duty assignments, and to the extent practical, manage working hours to avoid overtime and holiday work. However, given the nature of the industry, inspections often have to take place on evenings, weekends, and holidays due to the constraints of specific requests. For example, live product that requires inspection and/or certification and is harvested and shipped on a weekend also requires weekend work from an inspector. SIP rates are analyzed annually and updated as needed to ensure that NMFS recovers as nearly as possible the operating expenses of the Program, without generating a profit.

Comment 14: Several commenters wrote that SIP inspectors and industry will need time to adjust to the changes in the final rule. Companies will need time to make internal changes to their documentation and procedures, as well as train employees. Commenters further noted that NOAA should recognize the seasonal contracts for inspection services to allow for sufficient timing and outreach to these participants.

Response: Since the proposed rule did not make any changes to the way in which NMFS SIP currently operates, the agency does not believe that an adjustment period is necessary. NMFS does agree that before implementing any changes to policy that will affect how industry operates or responds, stakeholders will be notified and engaged in dialogue to ensure all parties understand the changes and have sufficient time to implement any changes required.

Comment 15: One commenter wrote that NMFS being the only organization to provide export health certification and grading for other agency purchases does not make it a true voluntary program if industry wants to distribute and market their seafood products in a global community.

Response: NMFS offers services to industry that are required as part of doing business in the international arena, or with the U.S. Government Purchasing Programs. Since SIP operates as a fee-for-service agency, and does not have appropriated funding, it is necessary to charge for these services. NMFS calculates the rates to recover as nearly as possible the operating costs of the Program without generating a profit, and analyzes and adjusts them annually. NMFS does not mandate the inspections and certification required from importing countries and other U.S. Government agencies, but is the Competent Authority within the U.S. Government to provide inspection and export certification for fish and fishery products. SIP's provision of those services allows customers to participate in international trade and government purchase programs only if they choose to do so, and at the level they choose to participate. NMFS represents the U.S. in negotiations with other countries regarding their import requirements, and works to reduce the inspection and certification burdens imposed on U.S. exporters.

NMFS made no changes to the regulatory text from the proposed rule to the final rule. NMFS made one change regarding a sampling approach that was described in the proposed rule preamble. SIP has decided not to go forward with the proposed six and zero sampling plan, and will continue to use the single and multiple sampling plans formerly found in 50 CFR 260.61, which are also found in the Manual.

This final rule is published under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the provisions of this and other applicable laws.

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

A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 was not required for this final rule because this action does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments and this action does not preempt Tribal law. A Tribal summary impact statement is not required and none has been prepared.

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

Under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO 216-6A), the promulgation of regulations that are administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural in nature are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment. This final rule to update 50 CFR part 260 is procedural and administrative in nature, in that it merely reflects the actual operations of the SIP today. Neither fishing activity nor trade in seafood products are further restricted relative to any existing laws or regulations, either foreign or domestic. Given the procedural and administrative nature of this rulemaking, an Environmental Assessment was not required and none has been prepared.

This final rule does not contain a change to a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The existing collection of information requirements would continue to apply under the following OMB Control Number: 0648-0266, Seafood Inspection and Certification Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

I. Harvest Specifications

This final rule sets 2025-26 harvest specifications and management measures for the 90+ groundfish stocks or management units which currently have annual catch limits (ACLs) or ACL contributions to stock complexes managed under the PCGFMP, except for Pacific whiting. Pacific whiting harvest specifications are established annually through a separate bilateral process with Canada.

The proposed overfishing limits (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), and ACLs are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic data, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. See tables 1a and 2a to Part 660, Subpart C in the regulatory text supporting this rule for the 2025-26 OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs for each stock or stock complex.

A detailed description of each stock and stock complex for which the Council establishes harvest specifications set through this rule can be found in the 2024 SAFE document posted on the Council's website at https://www.pcouncil.org/stock-assessments-star-reports-stat-reports-rebuilding-analyses-terms-of-reference/safe-documents-4/. A summary of how the 2025-26 harvest specifications were developed, including a description of off-the-top deductions for Tribal, research, incidental open access (IOA), and experimental fisheries, was provided in the proposed rule (87 FR 70406, August 29, 2024) and is not repeated here. Additional information on the development of these harvest specifications is also provided in the Analysis.

For most stocks, the Council recommended harvest specifications based on the default harvest control rule used in the prior biennium. The Council recommended deviating from the default harvest control rule for four stocks in 2025-2026. Table 1 presents a summary of the changes to the harvest control rules for these stocks for the 2025-26 biennium. Each of these changes was discussed in the proposed rule and that discussion is not repeated here.

This final rule revises management measures, which are used to further allocate the ACLs to the various components of the fishery ( i.e., biennial fishery harvest guidelines and set-asides) and to control fishing. Management measures for the commercial fishery modify fishing behavior during the fishing year to ensure catch does not exceed the ACL, and include trip and cumulative landing limits, time/area closures, size limits, and gear restrictions. Management measures for the recreational fisheries include bag limits, size limits, gear restrictions, fish dressing requirements, and time/area closures. Each of these changes was discussed in the proposed rule and that discussion is not repeated here.

Before making allocations to the primary commercial and recreational components of groundfish fisheries, the Council recommends “off-the-top deductions,” or deductions from the ACLs to account for anticipated mortality for certain types of activities, including: (1) harvest in Pacific Coast treaty Indian Tribal fisheries; (2) harvest in scientific research activities; (3) harvest in non-groundfish fisheries ( i.e., IOA catch); and (4) harvest that occurs under exempted fishing permits (EFPs). As part of NMFS' effort to simplify regulations pertaining to harvest specifications, the footnotes that typically specify these values in tables 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b of subpart C have been removed, and all off-the-top deductions for individual stocks or stock complexes and are included in the 2024 SAFE. The details of the EFPs are discussed below in section II, I of this preamble and section III, I of the proposed rule.

As defined at 50 CFR 660.11, an annual catch target (ACT) is a management target set below the ACL that may be used as an accountability measure in cases where there is uncertainty in inseason catch monitoring to ensure against exceeding an ACL. Since the ACT is a target and not a limit, it can be used in lieu of harvest guidelines (HGs) or set strategically to accomplish other management objectives. Sector-specific ACTs can also be specified to accomplish management objectives. For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is implementing ACTs for yelloweye rockfish in the non-trawl sectors (both commercial and recreational), copper rockfish in the recreational sector south of 34° 27′ North latitude (N lat.), and shortspine thornyhead in the commercial non-trawl sector north of 34° 27′ N lat. Further, NMFS is removing the ACT from the 2023-24 biennium for California quillback rockfish. These ACTs can be found in the footnotes to tables 1a and 2a to part 660, subpart C in the regulatory text of this final rule.

The Council routinely recommends 2-year trawl and non-trawl allocations during the biennial specifications process for stocks without formal allocations (as defined in section 6.3.2 of the PCGFMP) or stocks where the long-term allocation is suspended because the stock is declared overfished. The 2-year trawl and non-trawl allocations, with the exception of sablefish north of 36° N lat., are based on the fishery HG. The fishery HG is the tonnage that remains after subtracting the off-the-top deductions described in section II, A, entitled “Deductions from the ACLs,” in this preamble. The trawl and non-trawl allocations and recreational HGs are designed to accommodate anticipated mortality in each sector as well as variability and uncertainty in those mortality estimates. Additional information on the Council's allocation framework and formal allocations can be found in section 6.3 of the PCGFMP and 50 CFR 660.55 of the Federal regulations. Allocations are detailed in the harvest specification tables appended to 50 CFR part 660, subpart C in the regulatory text of this final rule and described in section III, C of the proposed rule. As proposed, allocations for shortspine thornyhead and widow rockfish are revised with this final rule.

For each biennium, the Council can consider HG sharing agreements for other stocks or stock complexes separate from the standard list of biennial allocations discussed in section II, C of this preamble and in section III, C of the proposed rule. These sharing agreements can be arrangements on how the HG is split among separate states, fishery sectors, or both. For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is implementing sharing agreements for: bocaccio south of 40°10′ N lat., canary rockfish, cowcod, Nearshore rockfish complex north of 40°10′ N lat., sablefish south of 36° N lat., slope rockfish south of 40°10′ N lat., and blackgill rockfish. All sharing agreements are maintained from the 2023-24 biennium, with the exception of sablefish south of 36° N lat. NMFS is implementing a new sharing agreement for sablefish south of 36° N lat. (described in section III, D of the proposed rule) based on a new recreational set-aside. Refer to the Council Analytical Document (see ADDRESSES ) for more information on how these HG sharing agreements were chosen. Each of the sharing agreements and the resulting shares between sectors and/or states are published in the SAFE.

Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) are large area closures intended to reduce the catch of a rockfish stock or stock complex by restricting fishing activity at specific depths. The boundaries for RCAs are defined by straight lines connecting a series of latitude and longitude coordinates that approximate depth contours. These sets of coordinates, or lines, are not gear or fishery specific, but can be used in combination to define an area. NMFS then implements fishing restrictions for a specific gear and/or fishery within each defined area. For the 2025-26 biennium, NMFS is making coordinate modifications to six waypoints (#95 through 100) on the 50 fathom (fm) line seaward of California between Pt. Arena and Bodega Bay. These modifications would better align existing RCA coordinates with the 50-fm chart-based depth contour.

The limited entry trawl fishery is made up of the shorebased individual fishing quota (IFQ) program (for whiting and non-whiting) and the at-sea whiting sectors (Mothership (MS) and catcher-processor (C/P)). For some stocks and stock complexes with a trawl allocation, an amount is first set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector with the remainder of the trawl allocation going to the Shorebased IFQ sector. Set-asides are not managed by NMFS or the Council except in the case of a risk to the ACL.

For several species, the trawl allocation is reduced by an amount set-aside for the at-sea whiting sector. This amount is designed to accommodate catch by the at-sea whiting sector when they are targeting Pacific whiting. This final rule adopts at-sea set asides as shown in section III, F, table 11 of the proposed rule.

For vessels fishing in the Shorebased IFQ Program, with either groundfish trawl gear or non-trawl gears, the following incidentally-caught stocks are managed with trip limits: Nearshore rockfish complex north and south of 40°10′ N lat., Washington black rockfish, Oregon black/blue/deacon rockfish complex, cabezon (46°16′ to 40°10′ N lat. and south of 40°10′ N lat.), Pacific spiny dogfish, longspine thornyhead south of 34°27′ N lat., big skate, California scorpionfish, longnose skate, Pacific whiting, and the Other Fish complex. As described in the proposed rule in section III, F, this rule maintains the same IFQ fishery trip limits for these stocks for the start of the 2025-26 biennium as those in place in 2024. Trip limits for the IFQ fishery can be found in table 1b (North) and table 1b (South) to part 660, subpart D in the regulatory text of this final rule. Changes to trip limits would be considered a routine measure under § 660.60(c), and may be implemented or adjusted, if determined necessary, through inseason action.

Management measures for the LEFG and OA non-trawl fisheries tend to be similar because the majority of participants in both fisheries use hook-and-line gear. Management measures, including area restrictions ( e.g., Non-Trawl RCA) and trip limits in these non-trawl fisheries, are generally designed to allow harvest of target stocks while keeping catch of overfished stocks low. LEFG trip limits are specified in table 2b (North) and table 2b (South) to subpart E in the regulatory text of this final rule. OA trip limits are specified in table 3b (North) and table 3b (South) to subpart F, in the regulatory text of this final rule. HG sharing agreements between non-trawl sectors are published in the SAFE.

NMFS is implementing status quo trip limits for LEFG and OA fisheries in 2025, with the exception of the OA trip limit for lingcod north of 42° N lat., which is being decreased from 11,000 pounds (lb) (4,990 kilograms (kg)) per 2 months, to 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) per 2 months, to ensure the OA trip limit is lower than the LEFG trip limit. NMFS is also modifying the temporal component ( i.e., monthly to bimonthly) of multiple OA and LEFG trip limits. Consolidating trip limits from monthly to bimonthly is expected to reduce regulatory complexity and confusion. With the exception of the trip limit for lingcod north of 42° N lat., trip limit amounts that were monthly will double for the bimonthly trip limit ( i.e., a trip limit that was 100 lb (45 kg) monthly will become a 200 lb (91 kg) trip limit in the bimonthly option). The Council could recommend further adjustment to the trip limits through additional inseason action, once more data on the current limits is collected and the effects on mortality, particularly discard mortality, are better understood. More information on these trip limits can be found in the Council Analytical Document (see ADDRESSES ).

The primary sablefish fishery tier program is a limited access privilege program set up under amendment 14 to PCGFMP (66 FR 41152, August 7, 2001). Participants hold limited entry permits with a pot gear and/or longline gear endorsement and a sablefish endorsement.

Under amendment 14, as set out in 50 CFR 660.231, the permit holder of a sablefish-endorsed permit receives a tier limit, which is an annual share of the sablefish catch allocation to this sector. NMFS sets three different tier limits through the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process and up to three permits may be stacked at one time on a vessel participating in the fishery. Stacked tier limits are combined to provide a cumulative catch limit for that vessel. After vessels have caught their full tier limits, they are allowed to move into other fisheries for sablefish, specifically the LEFG or OA trip limit fishery, or fisheries for other species. The tier limits for 2025 are as follows: Tier 1 at 246,824 lb (111,957 kg), Tier 2 at 112,193 lb (50,890 kg), and Tier 3 at 64,110 lb (29,080 kg). The tier limits for 2026 are as follows: Tier 1 at 234,312 lb (106,282 kg), Tier 2 at 106,506 lb (48,310 kg), and Tier 3 at 60,860 lb (27,606 kg).

Management measures for the recreational fisheries typically include depth restrictions and bag limits to constrain catch within the recreational HGs for each stock. These measures are designed to limit catch of overfished stocks found in the waters adjacent to each state while allowing target fishing opportunities in their particular recreational fisheries. Washington, Oregon, and California each proposed, and NMFS is implementing, different combinations of seasons, bag limits, area closures, and size limits for stocks targeted in recreational fisheries, as described in section III, H of the proposed rule. This final rule would set these measures for recreational fisheries occurring in the EEZ. Each state, respectively, typically sets measures for recreational fisheries in State waters. Changes to management measures for recreational fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California can be found in § 660.360 of the regulatory text of this final rule.

NMFS is implementing a new permit program for the directed OA sector starting on March 1, 2025. The directed OA fishery is defined in 50 CFR 660.11 under “open access fishery” and includes those vessels targeting groundfish pursuant to the OA regulations under Part 660 subpart F. It does not include vessels that retain groundfish incidentally to non-groundfish target species ( e.g., the salmon troll fishery, which may retain incidentally caught groundfish). For more background information on this measure, see section III, J of the proposed rule.

The permit program will require vessels that intend to participate in the directed OA sector to register their information, pay an administrative fee, and obtain a permit on an annual basis. Permits will expire on the last day of the birth month of the permit holder. The number of permits will not be capped. Permits will be assigned to a vessel owner per vessel ( i.e., if an owner intends to use two vessels in the directed OA fishery, they would need to obtain two permits, one for each vessel). Applications will be available year-round with an estimated 2-week turnaround between when an applicant submits a complete application and when a permit is issued; therefore, directed OA participants will need to do some short-term planning ahead for their participation in the sector. NMFS will use its existing web-based application with digital submission and delivery of the permit applications and to allow participants to provide either digital or paper proof of permit upon request. Required application information includes vessel ownership documentation from either the U.S. Coast Guard or state registration form. Permit lists would be shared with the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program for observer selection purposes.

All permits issued by NMFS carry an administrative cost, per the requirements for user fees based on the provision of a service. These costs vary based on the administrative costs of receiving applications, reviewing applications and any associated required documentation, and issuing permits, as a factor of the number of expected applications. The cost of the directed OA permit is estimated to be $73 per permit. This amount was determined in accordance with the NOAA Finance Handbook available at https://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/finance/documents/NOAAFinanceHBTOC_09.06.19.pdf and will be specified on the application form. The fee must be submitted with the application for the application to be considered complete. NMFS periodically recalculates the cost of permits, and will notify affected users on the application form in the future if the cost changes.

In the proposed rule, NMFS solicited public comment on whether vessel monitoring system (VMS) information should be required during the application process for the directed OA permit. All directed OA vessels are required to obtain and activate VMS in accordance with 50 CFR 660.14. NMFS did not receive any formally-submitted public comment related to this aspect of the proposed rule and after additional consideration, NMFS has decided to include this requirement in this final action. Specifically, the directed OA application will require the “passcode,” which is a code given to a fisherman when NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement confirms that their VMS unit has been activated. If fishermen do not know their passcode, they can call the West Coast Groundfish Declarations Line at 1-888-585-5518 to obtain that information.

Additionally, in the proposed rule, NMFS solicited public comment on whether or not the ability to dual declare both a directed OA declaration code (codes 33 through 35 at § 660.13(d)(4)(iv)(A)) and an IOA declaration code should be restricted. The purpose of this restriction would be to better delineate directed OA fishermen from IOA fishermen. NMFS did not receive any written public comment related to this aspect of the proposed rule and, after additional consideration, NMFS has decided to not restrict this activity.

NMFS is modifying the regulations pertaining to discard and retention requirements in the Electronic Monitoring (EM) program for non-IFQ species, to include sablefish and rex sole, and to exclude California halibut. The addition of sablefish and rex sole to the existing list in regulations, and removing California halibut from them, align current practices with the vessel monitoring plans that were approved under the Electronic Monitoring Program EFP. For more background information on this measure, see section III, K of the proposed rule.

NMFS is modifying the allocation framework for shortspine thornyhead. These modifications include removing the management line at 34°27′ N lat. and combining the area-specific ACLs, off-the-top deductions, HGs, and trawl/non-trawl allocations that would have otherwise been assigned north and south of 34°27′ N lat. NMFS is also changing shortspine thornyhead to a 2-year allocation species ( i.e., trawl/non-trawl allocation amounts will be set biennially as opposed to specified in the PCGFMP). See table 1a and table 2a to subpart C in the regulatory text of this final rule for the new 2025 and 2026 ACLs, and see table 1b and table 2b to subpart C in the regulatory text of this final rule for the new biennial trawl/non-trawl allocations. These allocation amounts may be revisited by the Council in future biennia. For more background information on this measure, see section III, L of the proposed rule.

NMFS is implementing a new management measure that requires recreational vessels fishing in Federal waters seaward of Washington, Oregon, or California, to possess a functional descending device. The requirement is one functional descending device per vessel, regardless of the number of anglers onboard. Although each of the respective states have their own requirements, those requirements are only applicable in State waters. This management measure applies to any vessel fishing for groundfish under recreational catch limits in Federal waters, thus creating continuity across State and Federal regulations. Anglers are required to present the descending device at the request of an enforcement officer. For more background information on this measure, see section III, M of the proposed rule.

NMFS is modifying the continuous transit regulations for California recreational vessels. These changes allow recreational vessels to stop and/or anchor in Federal waters shoreward of a Recreational RCA line, provided that no hook-and-line gear is deployed. NMFS took temporary emergency action to modify the continuous transit regulations for the 2024 fishing year (89 FR 22352, April 1, 2024 and 89 FR 67326, August 20, 2024). NMFS is making the same modifications permanent through this action for the 2025-26 biennium and beyond. For more background information on this measure, see section III, N of the proposed rule.

NMFS is making administrative changes to the regulations that correct the scientific name of Pacific sand lance and the common name of Pacific spiny dogfish. The scientific name for Pacific sand lance at § 660.5(a) is incorrectly listed as Ammodytes hexapterus. The correct scientific name for this species is Ammodytes personatus. The common name for spiny dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) has changed to include “Pacific” thus the correct common name is Pacific Spiny Dogfish.

NMFS is implementing a rebuilding plan for California quillback rockfish. NMFS declared California quillback rockfish overfished in December 2023 in response to a data-moderate assessment conducted by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in 2021 (Agenda Item E.2, Attachment 4, November 2021). When NMFS declares a stock overfished, the Council must develop and manage the stock in accordance with a rebuilding plan (50 CFR 600.310(j)), which must include certain rebuilding parameters, including T MIN , T MAX , and T TARGET . In March 2024, the Council adopted the California quillback rockfish rebuilding analysis (Agenda Item F.2 Attachment 1, March 2024), which specified the following rebuilding parameters: T MIN = 2045, T MAX = 2071, and mean generation time of 26 years. T TARGET (2060) was selected based on the chosen rebuilding strategy, which is the stock's ABC Rule (ACL = ABC; P* 0.45). As shown in the Analysis, this rebuilding strategy has a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by 2060 (T TARGET ) and 73.6 percent probability of rebuilding by T MAX (2071). Accordingly, this strategy will rebuild the stock within the MSA-mandated timeframe, while still providing some fishing opportunity to meet the needs of the fishing communities. For more information about how these rebuilding parameters were developed, see the Analysis and section III, P of the proposed rule.

The majority of quillback rockfish fishing mortality occurs in State waters. The rebuilding plan only applies in the EEZ. NMFS expects to work cooperatively with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on any measures the state deems fit to apply in state waters to support rebuilding throughout the stock's range. Mortality of California quillback rockfish in state waters will be deducted from the Federal ACL.

This final rule makes minor corrections to the regulations at 50 CFR part 660, which were included in the proposed rule. These minor corrections are necessary to reduce confusion and inconsistencies in the regulatory text, alleviate enforcement challenges, and ensure the regulations accurately implement the Council's intent.

At § 660.11, NMFS removed the definition for “grandfathered or first generation” because it is a term that is no longer used in Federal regulations.

At § 660.13, NMFS made various changes to the non-trawl logbook regulations. First, at § 660.13(a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), NMFS amended the regulations to clarify that information on setting and retrieving gear must be recorded for every set. The regulations as previously written: “Logbook entries for setting gear, including vessel information, gear specifications, set date/time/location, must be completed within 2 hours of setting gear” created enforcement challenges because some fishermen interpreted the regulations to mean that they were only required to record information once all of their gear was deployed ( i.e., if they set a portion of their gear on one day, and the rest of their gear the next day, they interpreted that to mean the 2-hour requirement starts after the last piece of gear is set). Amending these regulations clarifies that the 2-hour and 4-hour requirements for setting and retrieving gear apply to each individual set. Second, at § 660.13(a)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), NMFS clarified that all logbook information, whether recorded inside or outside of the electronic application, must be available at-sea for review by an enforcement officer. The regulations as written: “Information recorded outside of the logbook entry must be available for review at-sea by authorized law enforcement personnel upon request” have led to enforcement challenges because some fishermen have interpreted the regulations to mean they are only required to show enforcement officers logbook data that they have recorded outside of the electronic application. Amending these regulations clarifies that all logbook data, whether recorded in the electronic application or by some other method, must be available for review by an enforcement officer. Third, NMFS removed the paragraph at § 660.13(a)(4), as the non-trawl paper logbook provision will expire at the end of 2024 and this regulation will no longer be relevant starting in 2025.

At § 660.55(i)(2), NMFS clarified that at-sea set-asides are described in the biennial specifications process and not “in Tables 1D and 2D of this subpart” as previously stated.

At § 660.60(c)(1)(i), NMFS removed the cross reference to “(c)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section” as those references no longer exist.

At § 660.60(g) and § 660.65, NMFS clarified the language about how catch of groundfish species in state waters is accounted for under Federal harvest specifications.

At § 660.140(g), NMFS added a sentence clarifying that IFQ species with discard mortality rates (DMRs) should be appropriately accounted for when deducting discard amounts from quota pounds (QP) in vessel accounts. As previously written, the regulations stated that discarded species must be accounted for and deducted from QP in vessels accounts, but they did not state that the species with reduced discard amounts because of DMRs should be accounted for when deducting discard amounts from QP in vessels accounts. Revising this regulation clarifies that IFQ species with DMRs should also be accounted for when deducting discard amounts from QP in vessel accounts.

At § 660.230(b) and § 660.330(b), NMFS removed the 25-hook maximum limit on each mainline. As previously written, the regulations precluded fishermen from adjusting the number of hooks on mainlines if they were using fewer than four mainlines. For example, if a fisherman chooses to only have two mainlines in the water, then the intent of the regulations is to allow a maximum of 50 hooks on each mainline. However, as previously written, the fisherman would still only be able to use 25 hooks per mainline. The gear specifications require that no more than 100 hooks may be in the water, therefore, removing the 25-hook maximum does not change the intent of the regulations.

At § 660.231, NMFS revised the paragraph at (b)(3)(iv) to improve readability. The purpose of these revisions is to make the regulatory text less confusing for fishermen and enforcement to interpret. No substantive changes to this regulation were made.

The notice of availability (NOA) for amendment 33 to the PCGFMP was published on August 2, 2024 (89 FR 63153). NMFS received one supportive public comment on the NOA. The proposed rule was published on August 29, 2024 (87 FR 70406). NMFS received two public comments which were generally supportive of the proposed rule, one of which offered technical corrections. All public comments pertaining to the changes to the PCGFMP and harvest specification and management measures described in the proposed rule are summarized and addressed below.

Comment 1: CDFW submitted a public comment that supported the proposed rule. CDFW also provided NMFS with a list of technical corrections and clarifications to the text in the preamble of the proposed rule.

Response: NMFS thanks CDFW for their support and thorough review of the proposed rule. All technical corrections and clarifications requested by CDFW were to text or tables in the preamble of the proposed rule; none of which are carried forward in the preamble of this final rule. However, NMFS affirms the below technical corrections and clarifications to the proposed rule preamble text and tables.

On page 70414, the cabezon IOA set-aside for 2025 in table 5 was incorrectly listed as 0.06 mt. The correct value is 0.6 mt. With the implementation of this final rule, IOA set-asides are no longer specified in regulatory text, but will be available in the SAFE posted on the Council's website (see ADDRESSES ).

On page 70416, the 2026 bocaccio south of 40°10′ N lat. non-trawl percentage and value in table 8 was incorrectly listed as 60 percent and 1,025.1 mt. The correct values are 61 percent and 1,012.7 mt. These values were correctly listed in the proposed regulatory text in table 2b to Part 660, Subpart C on page 70436.

On page 70421, the season dates for the Northern Mendocino, San Francisco, and part of the Central Groundfish Management Areas (GMAs) were incorrectly listed as April 1-April 31. The correct dates are April 1-April 30. Additionally, on page 70421 in the same paragraph, the “closed in the EEZ” text, listed between the October and December seaward of 50 fm fisheries, did not provide a corresponding time for that closure, which should be November 1-November 30. These season dates and time ranges were accurately listed in table 13 on page 70421. Last, on page 70421, CDFW recommended that NMFS use consistent naming conventions for the Central Management Areas, as CDFW uses in their state regulations. NMFS lists these two areas as Central Management Area (37°11′ N lat. to 36° N lat.) and Central Management Area (36° N lat. to 34°27′ N lat.), whereas CDFW refers to these areas as “Central north” and “Central south.” NMFS will consider this recommendation in the drafting of future rulemakings.

On page 70422, CDFW commented that NMFS mis-characterized how RCA lines have historically been used for recreational fisheries. NMFS agrees that using a range of depths, i.e., implementing an RCA closure between two fathom lines, is a standard practice for the commercial non-trawl fishery, and not the recreational fishery as the proposed rule text suggests. Additionally, on page 70422, CDFW commented that NMFS incorrectly identified the first time that the 50 fm “offshore fishery” management measure was enacted. NMFS cited the Council's September 2023 inseason action (88 FR 67656, October 2, 2023) as the first time the 50 fm “offshore fishery” came into effect, while CDFW commented that such an “offshore fishery” was in effect from May 15 to July 15, 2023, in the San Francisco and Mendocino GMAs, and that offshore only fisheries were also scheduled to occur from October 1 through December 31, 2023, in the Central GMA, and from September 16 through December 31, 2023, in the Southern GMA. These scheduled offshore fishery management measure actions identified by CDFW were enacted by CDFW through their State regulations. Thus, NMFS correctly cited the September 2023 inseason action as the first time that an “offshore fishery” management measure was enacted in Federal waters through the Council process. Next, on page 70422, NMFS affirms CDFW's comment that the seasonal Recreational RCA boundaries listed in table 13 are not an “exception” to the recreational management measures to be carried forward from 2024 to the 2025-26 biennium, as the text suggests. No changes were made to the season structure and depth limits by management area between 2024 and 2025-26. NMFS did however change the language used in table 13 to describe when recreational vessels are required to fish shoreward of 20 fm ( i.e., NMFS denotes “closed in the EEZ” instead of “<20 fm”). Last, on page 70422, when discussing the modification of filet requirements for select groundfish species, CDFW recommended that NMFS specify the “entire skin” when referring to the skin that is required to be left on the filet. NMFS affirms that the intent is for the “entire skin” to be left on the filet in the modified requirements.

The remainder of CDFW's suggestions, such as deleting commas and rearranging paragraphs, do not apply in this final rule as the text commented on is not being carried forward in this final rule.

Comment 2: The Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (PWCC) submitted a comment that supports the proposed rule; specifically the proposed set-asides for the at-sea Pacific whiting sectors.

Response: NMFS thanks the PWCC for their support and appreciates their collaboration on the development of the set-asides.

Comment 3: An anonymous individual submitted a comment on the NOA that supports the proposed amendment, including the California Quillback Rockfish Rebuilding Plan and the revised allocation framework for shortspine thornyhead.

Response: NMFS thanks the commenter for their support of the proposed amendment.

At the September 2024 meeting, the Council discussed and recommended necessary corrections to the proposed rule that were discovered by Council and NMFS staff during the preparation of the proposed rule. The Council also recommended that certain inseason changes for 2024 be carried over to the start of 2025. In alignment with the Council's recommendations, NMFS offers the following corrections and carryover changes in this final rule. These corrections and changes to the proposed rule do not change the substance or intent of this action.

In tables 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b to 50 CFR part 660 Subpart C in the regulatory text of the proposed rule (see 87 FR 70434 through 87 FR 70438), the OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and biennial allocations for the Shelf Rockfish complexes north and south of 40°10′ N lat are incorrect. In addition, the trawl IFQ allocations for north of 40°10′ N lat on table 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) to Part 660 Subpart D are incorrect (see 87 FR 70439). These errors occurred because the harvest specifications for greenspotted rockfish, which is a component species of the Shelf Rockfish complexes, were incorrect in the Council's final Analytical Document (see ADDRESSES ), and those specifications contributed to the overall OFLs, ABCs, ACLs, and allocations for the Shelf Rockfish complexes specified in the proposed rule. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee reviewed and approved the revised OFLs and ABCs at the Council's September 2024 meeting. Specifically, the corrected harvest specifications, biennial allocations, and trawl IFQ allocations for the Shelf Rockfish complexes can be found in Agenda Item I.6 Supplemental Revised Attachment 1 September 2024 (see pcouncil.org ) and in tables 2 through 5 below. These corrections are incorporated into tables 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b to CFR 50 Part 660 Subpart C and table 1 to paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D) to Part 660 Subpart D in the regulatory text of this final rule.