The RHS offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. RHS offers loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single- and multi-family housing, childcare centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, and housing for farm laborers. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, State and Federal Government agencies, and local communities.

Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 authorized the USDA to make housing loans to farmers to enable them to provide habitable dwellings for themselves or their tenants, lessees, sharecroppers, and laborers. The USDA then expanded opportunities in rural areas, making housing loans and grants to rural residents through the Single-Family Housing (SFH) and Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Programs.

The RHS administers the MFH section 515 Rural Rental Housing Direct Loan Program under 7 CFR part 3560, subpart B. The Section 515 program employs a public-private partnership by providing subsidized loans at an interest rate of one percent to developers to construct or renovate affordable rental complexes in rural areas. This one percent loan keeps the debt service on the property sufficiently low to support below-market rents affordable to low-income tenants. Many of these projects also utilize other Federal, State, and local funding sources and rental subsidies such as HUD's Section 8 and low-income housing tax credit proceeds.

The RHS also operates the MFH Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan and Grant Program under sections 514 and 516 set forth in 7 CFR part 3560, subparts L and M. The MFH Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan and Grant Program provides low interest loans and grants to provide housing for farmworkers. These eligible farmworkers may either live and work at the borrower's farm, including seasonal and migrant workers (“on-farm”), or they may live away from the farm (“off-farm”).

Under the current regulation, borrowers are required to install and maintain smoke alarms in all dwelling units, common use areas, and other spaces in all residential buildings included as security for Agency financed loans and grants. Borrowers must also ensure that smoke alarms are properly located to protect tenant safety and the value of the Agency's asset. Failure to maintain adequate smoke alarms may lead to injury of persons, damage to property, or a non-monetary loan default.

On December 29, 2022, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) (Act), which incorporated The Public and Federally Assisted Housing Fire Safety Act, 2022, which requires each unit and common use areas of Federally assisted housing to contain hardwired or 10-year non-rechargeable, sealed, tamper-resistant primary battery-powered smoke alarm devices, as well as other items. The Act further amended the Housing Act of 1949, to implement these new smoke detector requirements for Section 515 Rural Rental Housing and Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan Programs Public Law 117-328, div. AA, title VI, sec. 601. This final rule will implement the requirements the Act which is intended to: (1) align the smoke alarm requirements with more stringent requirements for Federally assisted housing industry standards; (2) increase the safety of tenants and visitors at properties; (3) reduce the risk of losing available affordable housing units in rural communities due to uninhabitability caused by smoke and fire damage as a result of outdated smoke alarm devices; and (4) provide the Agency with additional protection from the loss of its security value.

RHS published a proposed rule on January 8, 2024 [89 FR 892], in the Federal Register to solicit comments on the proposed changes to 7 CFR part 3560 of subpart B and 7 CFR 3560.103(a)(3)(xx) of subpart C related to smoke alarm requirements for Section 515 Rural Rental Housing and Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan and Grant Programs. The comment period ended on March 8, 2024. No changes were made in this final rule as a result of public comments.

RHS received comments from sixteen respondents. Commenters included three anonymous, nine private individuals, two property management agencies, one housing authority, and one national trade association. In addition, two comments from respondents were submitted in duplicate. Each comment is addressed, and duplicates are addressed in one statement.

The comments the Agency received are summarized as follows:

Public Comment: Two anonymous, four individuals, and one property management agent respondents expressed full support for the proposed rule.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondents' support and has determined that no action is required.

Public Comment: Two individual respondents expressed concern for the poor and substandard living conditions and safety of farmworker housing in America and ensuring that smoke alarms in Federally assisted housing are installed identically, legally, and safely. The comment stated it would be beneficial to apply this rule to temporary labor camp housing as well, if not already intended to be included.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's position and acknowledges the concern. The Agency does not fund temporary labor camp housing. The housing funded by the Agency's MFH Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan and Grant Program is intended for year-round and seasonal residential use by farmworkers. The Agency's farmworker housing, which is subject to the Qualifying Smoke Alarm requirements, contains appropriate furnishings and equipment, and is routinely inspected by the Agency to ensure it is maintained in a decent, safe, and sanitary manner.

Public Comment: One individual respondent expressed concern for flammable substances often involved in agricultural processes, and that the minimal cost to purchase and install smoke detectors far outweighs the monetary and physical consequences of a fire without an alarm system.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's support and has determined that no action is required.

Public Comment: One individual respondent expressed concern about the Agency's efforts to improve outdated policies to improve conditions for farm labor housing residents, and how this rule will be implemented and enforced.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's concern. The Agency implements regulations, policies and procedures with a focus to protect the health and safety of residents in its properties, including policies aimed at improving living conditions for farm labor housing residents. The Agency's routine physical inspections historically show that farm labor housing properties are currently in compliance with the smoke alarm requirements. With the effective date of this rule, properties found to be out of compliance with Qualifying Smoke Alarm requirements will be given written notice of a 30-day period to resolve the violation, which is considered a health and safety violation requiring immediate action. The Agency makes every effort to work closely with property owners and management agents to resolve any outstanding compliance issues prior to recommending legal action and levying monetary penalties.

Public Comment: One individual respondent expressed the concern that combining smoke and carbon monoxide detectors should be prohibited in all USDA Housing Programs because each device requires opposite positioning to be effective.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's position and acknowledges the concern. Although this rule does not address a combined installation of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, the Agency will take the respondent's comment under advisement as future fire and smoke alarm policies are developed.

Public Comment: One anonymous respondent expressed concern for the steady rate of increased housing repair and replacement costs in the affordable housing industry due to demand/supply constraints in the market for labor and materials. The respondent stated that the proposed rule aligns with more stringent requirements for smoke alarms, and that the Agency should prioritize ensuring that every home within the scope of the MFH Program has a reliable smoke alarm.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's position and acknowledges the concern. The Agency endeavors to utilize current programs for assisting owners to obtain needed affordable funding sources for housing repair and replacement costs and has determined that no action is required. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 requires that all dwelling units rehabilitated or repaired with a loan made or insured under the Act shall contain Qualifying Smoke Alarms that are installed in accordance with applicable codes and standards.

Public Comment: The housing authority respondent expressed concerns that the proposed rule does not include funding to purchase and install the required equipment. This creates a financial burden on the project. To implement this requirement, other necessary repairs will likely be sidelined when having to decide how to fund everything needed by the project.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's position and acknowledges the concerns regarding the costs associated with this requirement. Except for a select number of properties not in compliance and in need of substantial replacements, the Agency does not consider the overall cost to upgrade to be substantial. The cost of upgrading to the Qualifying Smoke Alarm is an eligible expense that may be paid from the property's operating funds. The Agency will utilize existing servicing methods to assist borrowers experiencing a financial hardship to ensure compliance with this rule.

Public Comment: A national trade association respondent expressed their commitment to supporting technological advancements and changes to national consensus codes and standards that will increase the number of operational smoke alarms in U.S. homes. The respondent's position is that consumers should be free to choose which smoke alarms are present in their homes, provided those devices comply with consensus codes and standards. The respondent does not support legislation that attempts to mandate one type of life safety technology at the exclusion of other important technologies.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the respondent's position and acknowledges the concern. Federally funded residential properties must comply with established Federal and local fire protection laws and standards, at a minimum. The Agency does not preclude borrowers and management agents from purchasing and installing life saving features that exceed the minimum Federal requirements. The Agency is mandating this type of life safety technology for buildings that are Federally funded to comply with established Federal and local fire protection laws and standards. This will ensure that safe and uniform lifesaving notification methods are consistently being used at all times. RHS is required to abide by the latest statutes and regulations and as new life saving technologies become available and are Federally adopted, the Agency will comply. In addition, the Agency will take the recommendation of additional policy guidance promoting monthly testing, and the installation of extra life safety technologies not supported by 10-year batteries, such as Low-Frequency Audible Alarms (Enhanced Waking Effectiveness), Multiple Sensing Technology Alarms, Control Units, and Interconnection if it exceeds Federally mandated requirements under advisement.

Public Comment: One property management agency respondent expressed concern that the rule as proposed by RD is incorrectly stated. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 requires smoke detectors to provide notification for persons with hearing loss, whereas the Public and Federally Assisted Housing Fire and Safety Act of 2022 does not. Respondent questions the sensibility of requiring all units in the housing development to contain a notification system for individuals with hearing loss regardless of whether a non-hearing loss household occupies the unit. Also, the rule should define what RD considers “Substantially Rehabilitated” for purposes of requiring hardwired smoke detectors. The cost of implementing the rule without funding provided for in title VI section 601(g) of the Appropriations Act creates a significant cost for older properties already struggling. USDA should state in its rule how it will reimburse properties for the cost of complying with the requirements or allow owners to opt out of the program.

Agency's Response: The Agency appreciates the commenters remarks and has stated the final rule as presented in title VI, section 601(e)(3)(B)(ii) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 and affirms the Qualifying Smoke Alarm Definition in the final Smoke Alarm rule mirrors that of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The Agency has determined that the language in the final rule informs that only units housing an individual with hearing loss must contain a notification system.

The final changes are as follows:

1. A new paragraph (e) will be added to § 3560.60 that cross-references § 3560.103(a)(3)(xx), which includes the Qualifying Smoke Alarm requirements that a smoke alarm must contain hardwired or 10-year non-rechargeable, non-replaceable, sealed, tamper-resistant, primary battery-powered smoke alarm devices containing silencing means, and provides notification for persons with hearing loss as required by applicable law.

2. The new Qualifying Smoke Alarm requirements will be added to § 3560.103(a)(3)(xx) which will set forth the new requirements that are cross-referenced in § 3560.60.

The changes in this final rule are authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, (Pub. L. 117-328), div. AA, title VI, sec. 601 and is authorized under sections 514(k), 515(m), and 516(c) of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1480 et seq.; and implemented under 7 CFR part 3560.

These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.

This final rule has been determined to be non-significant and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this rulemaking: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that conflict with this rulemaking will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rulemaking except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before suing in court that challenges action taken under this rulemaking.

The policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. This final rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; therefore, consultation with states is not required.

Executive Order 13175 imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications or preempt Tribal laws. RHS has determined that the final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If Tribal leaders are interested in consulting with RHS on this rulemaking, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or RD's Tribal Coordinator at: AIAN@usda.gov to request such a consultation.

The Administrative Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2023 (Act) (See Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. 118-5, 137 Stat 31, div. B, title III) requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess agency compliance with the Act, which establishes requirements for administrative actions that affect direct spending, in GAO's major rule reports. The Act does not apply to this rule because it does not increase direct spending.

The programs affected by this regulation are listed in the Assistance Listing Catalog (formerly Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) under number 10.415-Rural Rental Housing Loans, 10.427-Rural Rental Assistance Payments, 10.405-Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.

Rural Development has reviewed this final rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-004, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to identify any major civil rights impacts the final rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. After review and analysis of the final rule and available data, it has been determined that implementation of the rulemaking will not adversely or disproportionately impact very low, low- and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes, or persons with disability by virtue of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or marital or familial status. No major civil rights impact is likely to result from this final rule.

RD is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” RHS determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.

The information collection requirements contained in this final rule have been approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. This final rule contains no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal Governments and on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and Tribal Governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language) should contact the responsible Mission Area, agency, staff office; or the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ad-3027.pdf from any USDA office, by calling (866) 632-9992, or by writing a letter addressed to USDA. The letter must contain the complainant's name, address, telephone number, and a written description of the alleged discriminatory action in sufficient detail to inform the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR) about the nature and date of an alleged civil rights violation. The completed AD-3027 form or letter must be submitted to USDA by:

(1) Mail : U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; or

(2) Fax : (833) 256-1665 or (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: program.intake@usda.gov .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

It is USDA's intention that the provisions of this final rule shall operate independently of each other. In the event that this rule or any portion is ultimately declared invalid or stayed as to a particular provision, it is USDA's intent that the rule nonetheless be severable and remain valid with respect to those provisions not affected by a declaration of invalidity or stayed. USDA concludes it would separately adopt all of the provisions contained in this final rule. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Rural Housing Service amends 7 CFR part 3560 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2024 (89 FR 44933). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2023-61, dated August 16, 2023, issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-61) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that the pivot door pressure seals on the thrust reverser fixed structure were found disbonded or missing on several airplanes.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the pivot door pressure seals and accomplishing applicable corrective actions. The FAA also proposed to require a functional test of the thrust reversers. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the pivot door pressure seals on the thrust reverser fixed structure. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in engine thrust loss due to flow path overboard leakage during forward thrust operation and reduce airplane performance during one-engine inoperative conditions in climb margin and ceiling altitude.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1468.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-78-7501, Revision 01, dated July 13, 2023. This material specifies procedures for one-time general visual inspection for discrepant (missing, damaged, or disbonded) thrust reverser pivoting door pressure seals, a bonding check of the pivoting door seals, and repair or replacement of discrepant seals. This material also specifies procedure for performing a functional test of the thrust reverser. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 53 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Commerce initially promulgated its AD and CVD regulations in 1997 and 1998, respectively. 1 Since the inception of these regulations, Commerce has periodically modified certain sections or paragraphs or adopted new provisions. For example, in 2021 Commerce modified existing regulations covering scope inquiries at 19 CFR 351.225, and adopted new provisions to codify its practice regarding circumvention inquiries and covered merchandise referrals at 19 CFR 351.226 and 351.227. 2 Commerce modified those regulations as well as promulgating new ones on March 25, 2024, to further improve and strengthen the administration and enforcement of the AD and CVD laws. 3 Most recently, on December 16, 2024, Commerce revised certain other existing regulations and promulgated additional new regulations to further enhance the trade remedy laws, with a particular emphasis on CVD laws and procedures. 4

In order to accurately reflect the modified language, dates and new provisions in the AD and CVD regulations, Commerce is modernizing the annexes accompanying the regulations. Specifically, Commerce is updating the number of days and the regulation cross-reference for each of the listed events in annexes I through IV, and annexes VIII-A through VIII-C. Commerce is also creating new annexes IX, X, and XI to provide additional guidance to Scope Inquires, Circumvention Inquiries, and Covered Merchandise Referrals. 5 Annexes IX, X, and XI will similarly contain a field with the number of days, event name, and regulation for each specific event. Lastly, Commerce is also removing existing Annex V as the provided cross-reference to regulations prior to 1997 is obsolete and reserving it for potential future use of a new annex V.

The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency procedure. See Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (changes to procedural rules are not subject to notice and comment review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 349 (4th Cir. 2001) (rules for handling appeals are procedural where they do not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Substantive rules “effect a change in existing law or policy or which affect individual rights and obligations,” whereas interpretative rules “clarify or explain existing law or regulation and are exempt from notice and comment” review under the APA.).

Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) or any other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))). Similarly, there is no need for a 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).

In addition, Commerce finds good cause pursuant to the authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) to forego prior notice, opportunity for public comment, and a 30-day delay in effective date because such procedures are unnecessary. This rulemaking merely updates the annexes to reflect changes to the AD and CVD regulations that have already undergone notice and comment. As such, the contents of the revised annexes have already undergone notice and comment rulemaking, and repeating that process is unnecessary.

As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis nor a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.

This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (April 6, 2023).

This rulemaking pertains strictly to Federal agency procedures and does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (August 4, 1999).

This final rule does not impact information collection requirements that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

For the reasons stated above, the U.S. Department of Commerce amends 19 CFR part 351 as follows:

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

In this rule, OFAC is updating 31 CFR 510, 515, 526, 536, 544, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 555, 558, 569, 570, 576, 578, 579, 582, 583, 584, 585, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 594, 597, 598, and 599 to update or add general licenses authorizing payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States. Specifically, OFAC is replacing the requirement in the general license to submit annual reports for payments received with a requirement to retain for ten years records with details of payments received.

In 31 CFR 591, in addition to replacing the reporting requirement with a recordkeeping requirement as described above, OFAC is revising the general license by simplifying the language that authorizes payments.

In 31 CFR 594 and 597, in addition to replacing the reporting requirement with a recordkeeping requirement as described above, OFAC is updating § 594.517 and § 597.513 to conform with current standards for OFAC general licenses including by removing the requirement for a letter of engagement prior to receiving payment from funds originating outside the United States.

In 31 CFR 549, OFAC is updating the general license at § 549.507 authorizing the provision of certain legal services to conform with current standards for OFAC general licenses including by removing the requirement that payment for legal services be specifically licensed. Additionally, OFAC is renumbering the general licenses at § 549.508 through 549.512 as § 549.509 through 549.513, respectively, and adding new § 549.508, which authorizes payment for legal services from funds originating outside the United States.

In 31 CFR 576, OFAC is updating the general license at § 576.507 authorizing the provision of certain legal services to conform with current standards for OFAC general licenses including by removing the requirement that payment for legal services be specifically licensed. Additionally, OFAC is adding new § 576.508, which authorizes payment for legal services from funds originating outside the United States.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OFAC amends 31 CFR chapter V to read as follows:

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

On November 7, 2024, OFAC issued GL 5Q and GL 8O to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations (VSR), 31 CFR part 591. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website ( https://ofac.treasury.gov ) when it was issued. GL 5Q supersedes GL 5P, which was issued on August 12, 2024. GL 8O supersedes GL 8N, which was issued on May 10, 2024. The text of these GLs is provided below.

The EPA is correcting the deadline for infrastructure SIP submissions under its authority provided in section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7410), which directs the States to submit their implementation plans within 3 years after promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS.

The EPA is also acting under the authority provided by CAA sections 103, 105, 110, 114, 301, 311, 314, and 319, which direct the EPA to develop and implement measures to conduct ambient air quality surveillance. Under this authority, this action implements minor, non-substantive typographical and technical corrections to conform the 40 CFR part 58 regulatory text to the rule's preamble and remedies regulatory text formatting errors.

In the proposed rule published on January 27, 2023 (88 FR 5558), the preamble states that “Under CAA sections 110(a)(1), all states are required to make these infrastructure SIP submissions within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised primary standard.” However, in the final rule published on March 6, 2024 (89 FR 16202), the preamble incorrectly and inadvertently states that “Under CAA section 110(a)(1), all States are required to make these infrastructure SIP submissions within three years after the effective date of a new or revised primary standard. While the CAA authorizes the EPA to set a shorter time for States to make these SIP submissions, the EPA is requiring submission of infrastructure SIPs within three years of the effective date of this revised primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.”

Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), infrastructure SIP submissions are not due within three years of the effective date, but within three years of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The EPA has traditionally held that “promulgation” means the signature and widespread dissemination of a final rulemaking in the context of the NAAQS. Per this standard practice, because the EPA promulgated (signed and made available on the EPA's website) the reconsideration of the PM 2.5 NAAQS on February 7, 2024, infrastructure SIP submissions are due by no later than February 7, 2027.

To be consistent with the CAA and the proposed rule, the EPA is correcting the last two sentences of the first paragraph of B. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure SIP Requirements in the final rule preamble.

In FR Doc. 2024-02637, at 89 FR 16202 in the Federal Register of March 6, 2024, on page 16367, in the second column, the last two sentences of the first paragraph of B. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure SIP Requirements are corrected to read as follows:

“Under CAA section 110(a)(1), all States are required to make these infrastructure SIP submissions within three years after the promulgation date of a new or revised primary standard. While the CAA authorizes the EPA to set a shorter time for States to make these SIP submissions, the EPA is requiring submission of infrastructure SIPs within three years of the promulgation date of this revised primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.”

The EPA is also making several corrections to inadvertent errors in the PM 2.5 monitoring regulatory text as described below.

After publication, it was realized that the EPA did not add promulgated § 50.20 to the 40 CFR 50.3 list of sections containing PM 2.5 standards, which was inconsistent with past NAAQS regulations. Therefore, in 40 CFR 50.3, the EPA is adding § 50.20 to its list of sections containing PM 2.5 standards to be consistent with all existing PM 2.5 standards and methods.

The EPA proposed to adjust the minimum value required by appendix A, section 3.2.4, to be considered valid sample pairs for the PM 2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) from 3 µg/m 3 to 2 µg/m 3 (88 FR 5665, January 27, 2023). In section 3.2.4 of appendices A and B to part 58, the EPA finalized 2 µg/m 3 for the quality assurance program that assesses PM 2.5 network bias. However, in the final rule, section 4(c)(5) in appendix A and section 4(b)(5) and (c) in appendix B, which provides the PM 2.5 limit for use in bias assessments, was not updated to reflect the finalized 2 µg/m 3 for PM 2.5 and instead states the previous 3 µg/m 3 , which is inconsistent with section 3.2.4 in the two appendices. Within the PM NAAQS, the same criteria should be used for PM 2.5 for consistency. Therefore, the EPA is correcting section 4(c)(5) of appendix A and section 4(b)(5) and (c) of appendix B to part 58 to be consistent with section 3.2.4 of appendices A and B to part 58.

In the PM NAAQS Reconsideration proposed rule (88 FR 5665, January 27, 2023), the EPA proposed to revise equation 6 in section 4.2.1 of appendices A and B to part 58. The proposed equation 6 had a plus sign in the denominator. However, in the final rule, the EPA inadvertently published equation 6 with a minus sign in the denominator instead of a plus sign. Therefore, the EPA is correcting the denominator in equation 6 of section 4.2.1 in appendices A and B by changing the minus sign to a plus sign, which is consistent with what was proposed.

In section 2.2.2 in appendix C to part 58, the EPA is correcting a typo by replacing “multijusinstincional” with “multijurisdictional.”

Appendix C to part 58 of the final rule's regulatory text had an incorrect instruction to remove and reserve sections 2.4 and 2.4.1 and remove sections 2.4.1. through 2.4.1.7. The EPA's intention was to reserve all of section 2.4, which includes sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.6 and their subsections, and to remove sections 2.4.1.1 through 2.4.1.7. However, due to the EPA's confusing instructions, only sections 2.4 and 2.4.1 were reserved. To correct this issue, the EPA is reserving sections 2.4.2 through 2.4.6 of appendix C to part 58, including their subsections, so that all of section 2.4 is reserved as intended.

Also, when the EPA reserved section 2.4 in appendix C to part 58, the EPA revoked language associated with Approved Regional Methods (ARMs). However, after publication, several mentions of the revoked term “ARM” and references to the reserved section 2.4 were left in appendices A and C to part 58. To correct this issue, the EPA is removing the revoked term “ARM” and references to the reserved section 2.4 from section 3.2.4.2 in appendix A to part 58 and sections 2.7.1, 2.8.4, 2.7.6, 2.8.1, 2.8.5, and 3.1 in appendix C to part 58.

Lastly, after publication of the final rule, the EPA became aware that, in the finalized tables E-3 and E-6 of appendix E to part 58, several merged cells were inadvertently unmerged, resulting in misalignment of the data presented for each pollutant-specific row in the tables. The EPA is correcting this error by providing reformatted tables E-3 and E-6 so that each pollutant-specific row and the information in each column is displayed correctly.

Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this correction final without prior proposal. In this instance, notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary because this action implements minor, non-substantive typographical and technical corrections that correct preamble language in one instance, conform the regulatory text to the rule's preamble, and remedy formatting errors.

Moreover, EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Section 553(d)(3) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register “except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” “In determining whether good cause exists, an agency should `balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.” Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1105 (8th Cir. 1977)). This action adjusts a deadline that will not apply for at least two years (from May 6, 2027, to February 7, 2027) and makes only minor technical and typographical corrections to the monitoring provisions that are not connected to immediate regulatory obligations.

For these reasons, the Agency finds that good cause exists under APA section 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective on December 19, 2024.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 and was, therefore, not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The EPA is clarifying the due date for infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2024 PM NAAQS and correcting inadvertent errors in the PM 2.5 monitoring regulatory text. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0084.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, this action corrects inadvertent errors in the final rule's preamble and regulatory text.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action corrects inadvertent errors in the final rule's preamble and regulatory text.

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.

This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes as Tribes are not obligated to adopt or implement any NAAQS. In addition, Tribes are not obligated to conduct ambient monitoring for PM or to adopt the ambient monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the 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 concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. This action corrects inadvertent errors in the final rule's preamble and regulatory text.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The final rule involved environmental monitoring or measurement. The PM NAAQS final rule maintained the use of the existing indicators for fine (PM 2.5 ) and coarse (PM 10 ) particles. The indicator for fine particles is measured using the Reference Method for the Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM 2.5 in the Atmosphere (appendix L to 40 CFR part 50), which is known as the PM 2.5 FRM, and the indicator for coarse particles is measured using the Reference Method for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM 10 in the Atmosphere (appendix J to 40 CFR part 50), which is known as the PM 10 FRM. To the extent feasible, the EPA employs a Performance-Based Measurement System (PBMS), which does not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods. The PBMS is defined as a set of processes wherein the data quality needs, mandates or limitations of a program or project are specified and serve as criteria for selecting appropriate methods to meet those needs in a cost-effective manner. It is intended to be more flexible and cost effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. This action corrects inadvertent errors in the monitoring regulatory text for parts 50 and 58.

The EPA believes that this correction does not concern human health or environmental conditions and, therefore, cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. This action corrects inadvertent errors in the final rule's preamble and regulatory text.

Although this action does not concern human health or environmental conditions, the EPA identified and addressed environmental justice concerns in the underlying final rule in sections II.A.2, II.B.3.a, II.B.3.c, II.B.2, and II.B.4. of the final rule preamble and also in the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment, Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment, and 2022 Policy Assessment.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this correction final without prior proposal. In this instance, notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary because this action implements minor, non-substantive typographical and technical corrections that conform the regulatory text to the rule's preamble and remedy formatting errors.

Accordingly, 40 CFR parts 50 and 58 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

The EPA is required to determine whether areas designated nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS attained the standards 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 an EPA regulatory monitoring site when the DV does not exceed 0.070 parts per million (ppm). For the Moderate nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS addressed in this action, the attainment date was August 3, 2024. Because the DV is based on the three most recent, complete calendar years of data, attainment must occur no later than December 31 of the year prior to the attainment date ( i.e., December 31, 2023, in the case of Moderate nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS). As such, the EPA's determinations for each area are based upon the complete, quality-assured, and certified ozone monitoring data from calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023.

This action addresses one area in Nevada that was classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as of the Moderate area attainment date of August 3, 2024. The EPA is addressing the remaining areas in other states in separate actions. Table 1 provides the DV and the EPA's air quality-based determination for the Moderate area addressed in this action.

The EPA is finding that the Moderate area listed in Table 1 did not attain by its attainment dates because their 2021-2023 DVs are greater than 0.070 ppm. If the EPA determines that a nonattainment area classified as Moderate failed to attain by the attainment date, CAA section 181(b)(2)(B) requires the EPA to publish a notice in the Federal Register , no later than 6 months following the attainment date, identifying each such area and identifying the applicable reclassification.

Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), the effect of this determination is that this area will be reclassified by operation of law as Serious on the effective date of this final rule. The reclassified area will then be subject to the Serious area requirement to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than August 3, 2027.

Once reclassified as Serious, the relevant state must submit to the EPA the SIP revisions for this area that satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to Serious areas established in CAA section 182(c) and in the EPA's implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 2 The EPA is establishing deadlines for submitting SIP revisions for this reclassified area in a separate action. 3

On October 26, 2015, the EPA issued its final action to revise the NAAQS for ozone to establish new 8-hour standards. 4 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 require that the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration may not exceed 0.070 ppm.

Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 52 areas throughout the country as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 5 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. 6 The EPA established the attainment date for “Marginal,” Moderate, and Serious nonattainment areas as three years, six years, and nine 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 January 3, 2023, the EPA determined that the Las Vegas, NV area addressed in this action did not attain the standards by the Marginal attainment date, reclassifying the area as Moderate by operation of law. 7

The statutory authority for these determinations is provided by the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ). Relevant portions of the CAA include, but are not necessarily limited to, sections 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 an 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 emissions 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 requires that within six months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based on the area's DV as of that date. Under CAA section 181(a)(5) as interpreted by the EPA in 40 CFR 51.1307, upon application by any state, the EPA may grant a 1-year extension to the attainment date when certain criteria are met. One criterion for a first attainment date extension is that an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour value for the attainment year must not exceed the level of the standard.

In the event an 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 an ozone nonattainment area failed to attain the ozone standard by the applicable attainment date, and requires the area to be 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. 8 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 six months after the attainment date, which, in the case of the Moderate nonattainment area considered in this determination, is February 3, 2025.

Once an area is reclassified, each state that contains a reclassified area is required to submit certain SIP revisions in accordance with its 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, 2027 (the Serious 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(c) for Serious 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.” The EPA is addressing the SIP revision and implementation deadlines for newly reclassified Serious areas, as well as the continued applicability of Moderate area requirements that these areas may not yet have met, in a separate rulemaking. 9

The level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS is 0.070 ppm. 10 Under the 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., 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. 11 The data handling convention in appendix U dictates that concentrations shall be reported in “ppm” to the third decimal place, with additional digits to the right being truncated. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.071 ppm is greater than 0.070 ppm and would exceed the standards, but a computed 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 attainment is based upon hourly ozone concentration data for calendar years 2021, 2022, and 2023 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. 12

State and local monitoring network plans are subject to approval by the EPA on an annual basis, and any interim modifications to those plans must also be approved by the EPA. 13 The annual monitoring network plan process is provided in 40 CFR 58.10 and the requirements governing system modifications and monitor discontinuations are laid out in 40 CFR 58.14. Where state or local agencies seek to modify the ambient air quality monitoring networks by discontinuing a monitor station, the EPA may approve such modifications subject to the criteria established in 40 CFR 58.14(c). The EPA may not approve such discontinuation if doing so would compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS. If a monitor has been discontinued subject to 40 CFR 58.14 such that the discontinuation results in insufficient data to calculate a valid DV according to appendix U to 40 CFR part 50, the EPA will determine the applicable area's attainment status based on the remaining monitors in the area.

The EPA is determining that the Moderate nonattainment area addressed in this action (Las Vegas, NV) failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of August 3, 2024. As shown in Table 1 of this notice, at least one monitor had a 2021-2023 DV greater than 0.070 ppm. The EPA has further determined that this area did not meet the requirement under section 181(a)(5)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1307 necessary to grant a 1-year extension of the attainment date because at least one monitor in the Las Vegas area had a 2023 fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average that was greater than 0.070 ppm. Table 2 of this notice shows the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration and 2021-2023 DV for each monitor in the Las Vegas area.

Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2), the EPA is determining that the Las Vegas, NV area failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of August 3, 2024. Therefore, upon the effective date of this final action, the area will be reclassified, by operation of law, to Serious for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Once reclassified as Serious, this area will be required to attain the standards “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than nine years after the initial designation as nonattainment, which in this case would be no later than August 3, 2027.

Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because our action to determine whether this area has attained the NAAQS by the attainment date is governed, per CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), solely by area design values as of that date. The area design values relied upon in this notice are calculations based on the certified air quality monitoring data governed by the EPA's regulations and involve no judgment or discretion. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary to take this action. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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 Las Vegas, NV nonattainment area failed to attain the 2015 ozone standards by the August 3, 2024 attainment date. This area will be reclassified as Serious nonattainment for the 2015 ozone standards by operation of law upon the effective date of the 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.

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.”

The EPA has identified a tribal area within the nonattainment area covered by this proposed rule that would be potentially affected by this rulemaking. Specifically, the Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony is located within the boundaries of the Las Vegas nonattainment area. The EPA has concluded that this rule may have tribal implications for this tribe for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, but it would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt tribal law. A tribe that is part of an area that is reclassified from Moderate to Serious nonattainment is not required to submit a tribal implementation plan revision to address new Serious area requirements. However, the nonattainment new source review major source threshold and offset requirements would change for stationary sources seeking preconstruction permits in any nonattainment areas newly reclassified as Serious, including on tribal lands within these nonattainment areas.

The EPA has communicated with the potentially affected tribe located within the boundaries of the nonattainment area addressed in this proposal, including offering government-to-government consultation, as appropriate. 14

To maintain the remedial impact of civil monetary penalties (CMPs) and to promote compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410) was amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) to require Federal agencies to regularly adjust certain CMPs for inflation. As amended, the law requires each agency to make an initial inflationary adjustment for all applicable CMPs, and to make further adjustments at least once every year thereafter for these penalty amounts. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 further stipulates that any resulting increases in a CMP due to the calculated inflation adjustments shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the increase takes effect 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register . Pursuant to the 2015 Act, agencies are required to adjust the level of the CMP with an initial “fix“, and make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Catch up adjustments are based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October for the year of the previous adjustment, and the October 2015 CPI-U. Annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U.

Sections 6103 and 6104 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-509) set forth the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA). Specifically, this statute imposes a CMP and an assessment against any person who, with knowledge or reason to know, makes, submits, or presents a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim or statement to the Government. The General Services Administration's regulations, published in the Federal Register (61 FR 246, December 20, 1996) and codified at 41 CFR part 105-70, currently set forth a CMP of up to $13,400 for each false claim or statement made to the agency. Based on the penalty amount inflation factor calculation, derived from originally dividing the October 2023 CPI by the October 2024 CPI and making the CPI-based annual adjustment thereafter, after rounding, we are adjusting the maximum penalty amount for this CMP to $13,700 for each false claim or statement made to the agency.

The 2015 Act also requires agencies to make annual adjustments to civil penalty amounts no later than January 15 of each year following the initial adjustment described above. For subsequent adjustments made in accordance with the 2015 Act, the amount of the adjustment is based on the percent increase between the CPI-U for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the CPI-U for the October one year prior to the October immediately preceding the date of the adjustment. If there is no increase, there is no adjustment of civil penalties. Therefore, if GSA adjusts penalties in January 2026, the adjustment will be calculated based on the percent change between the CPI-U for October 2026 (the October immediately preceding the date of adjustment) and October 2025 (the October one year prior to October 2026). GSA will publish the amount of these annual inflation adjustments in the Federal Register no later than January 15 of each year, starting in 2026.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement Act of 2015 expressly exempts this final rule from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by directing agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code” (Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). As such, this final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment, with an effective date 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register .

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the provisions of E.O. 12866 and has determined that it does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action and thus was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866. As indicated above, the provisions contained in this final rulemaking set forth the inflation adjustments in compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended, for specific applicable CMPs. The great majority of individuals, organizations and entities addressed through these regulations do not engage in such prohibited conduct, and as a result, we believe that any aggregate economic impact of these revised regulations will be minimal, affecting only those limited few who may engage in prohibited conduct in violation of the statute. As such, this final rule and the inflation adjustment contained therein should have no effect on Federal or State expenditures.

The agency and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB have determined that this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 801-808), also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, 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. GSA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As explained above, GSA is not required to first publish a proposed rule here. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

This final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.

Accordingly, 41 CFR part 105-70 is amended as set forth below:

The BLM is establishing this supplementary rule under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, which authorizes BLM State Directors to establish supplementary rules for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources.

The BLM approved resource management plans (RMPs) for the Colorado River Valley, Grand Junction, and Kremmling Field Offices in 2015, and for the Dominguez-Escalante NCA in 2017. The RMPs identify management actions that restrict certain activities and define allowable uses to protect natural resources and public health and safety. This final supplementary rule is necessary to implement those management decisions and make them enforceable.

The field offices completed their RMP processes and issued Records of Decision (RODs) after inviting the public to comment during scoping and public-comment periods. The field offices reviewed each public comment received during each step of the process and responded to all comments received during the public comment periods. (See the individual RMPs for responses to public comments.)

The BLM published a proposed supplementary rule on January 25, 2024 (89 FR 4872). The BLM received 432 comment letters during the 60-day public comment period, 344 of which were identical form letters and 88 of which were unique comments. Of those 88 unique comment letters, 17 contained substantive comments. Many comment letters expressed support for the proposed supplementary rule, but other letters said the proposed rules were too restrictive. Many of the form letters expressed the need for clarification and justification of some of the rules.

The proposed rule's restrictions on dispersed camping received the most comments. Commenters were concerned that the rule would diminish their ability to camp in dispersed areas. However, even with these restrictions, the vast majority of each of the field offices and the NCA would still be open to dispersed camping. Over 500,000 acres in the Colorado River Valley Field Office, over 300,000 acres in the Kremmling Field Office, and over 1 million acres in the Grand Junction Field Office (including the Dominguez-Escalante NCA) would still be available for dispersed camping. These comments did not result in changes to the final rule.

Some commenters said the public would not know about the new rule once it is finalized and that the BLM would have trouble enforcing it. The BLM plans to begin a public education campaign to help inform the public of the new rule, including through personal contacts in the field, signs, and other methods. These comments did not result in changes to the final rule.

In its comment, Eagle County requested that the BLM add a rule prohibiting public land users from leaving unsecured trash at campsites and requiring that unattended food and trash be stored in a sealed container or in locked vehicles. However, the BLM did not consider or analyze this requirement when preparing the Colorado River Valley Field Office RMP and the proposed supplementary rule, which precludes us from including this requirement in this final rule. The BLM will work with the county and the public to address trash concerns. The BLM did not change the final rule to address this comment.

The Kremmling Board of Trustees commented that the proposed rule would greatly reduce the number of areas within the Kremmling Field Office's jurisdiction that are available for recreational shooting. The BLM included this reduction in the final 2015 Kremmling RMP, and the public had the opportunity to comment on it at that time. Implementation of the restrictions in this final rule will result in over 300,000 acres still being available for recreational target shooting in areas managed by the Kremmling Field Office. This comment did not result in a change to the rule.

The BLM changed the definition of “target backstop” in the final rule based on comments received from Shooting Sports Round-table members that the proposed definition was too specific and that there are other backstop designs that will accomplish the same goal. The BLM also added language that states “you must not engage in target shooting without a target backstop” to each of the field offices' final rules. In the proposed rule, the BLM listed this requirement under the Colorado River Valley Field Office's rules only, which was an error.

In its comment on the proposed rule, Mesa County pointed out that the BLM made an error in including “Coal Gulch” in the Grand Junction Field Office mechanized travel winter closure areas in Table 6—Areas Closed to Mechanized Travel During Winter/Spring. The BLM agrees that this is an error and has removed Coal Gulch from this list (see Rule 8 below).

This final supplementary rule will apply to public lands and BLM facilities managed by the Colorado River Valley Field Office, Grand Junction Field Office, Kremmling Field Office, and Dominguez-Escalante NCA.

This final supplementary rule will address resource damage, public safety, wildland fire, and wildlife disruption concerns. The BLM consulted with the Shooting Sports Roundtable while preparing each RMP to coordinate on the shooting closures described in this final rule.

The final supplementary rule conforms with management decisions contained in the following RMPs:

• Colorado River Valley RMP (2015) as amended by the Sutey Ranch and Haines Parcel Approved RMP Amendment (2019);

• Grand Junction RMP (2015);

• Kremmling RMP (2015); and

• Dominguez-Escalante NCA RMP (2017).

This final supplementary rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866 as amended by E.O. 14094. This final supplementary rule will not have an effect of $200 million or more on the economy and will not adversely affect in a material way productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. This final supplementary rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This final supplementary rule will not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients, nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule will have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The BLM considered economic impacts at the time it developed the land use plans that underpin this final supplementary rule and it deemed these impacts to be minimal. The BLM expects that impacts from this final rule will affect a small number of outfitters and will have only a minor socioeconomic impact relative to the area's overall economy. For more economic information and analyses, please refer to the four RMPs listed earlier in this preamble and their supporting documents (see ADDRESSES ). The BLM has determined under the RFA that this final supplementary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final supplementary rule is not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final supplementary rule will not:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(2) Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local agencies; or geographic regions; or

(3) Have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

The final supplementary rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor will it have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The final supplementary rule does not constitute a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The final supplementary rule does not address property rights in any form and will not cause the impairment of constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that this final supplementary rule will not cause a “taking” of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive order.

This final supplementary rule will not have 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. Therefore, in accordance with E.O.13132, the BLM has determined that this final supplementary rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Under E.O. 12988, the BLM has determined that this final supplementary rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2).

In accordance with E.O. 13175, the BLM has found that this final supplementary rule does not include policies that have Tribal implications and will have no bearing on trust lands or on lands for which title is held in fee status by Indian Tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

This final supplementary rule does not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

This final supplementary rule implements key decisions in the following RMPs: Colorado River Valley Field Office, Grand Junction Field Office, Kremmling Field Office, and Dominguez-Escalante NCA. The BLM's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for these management plans analyzed the effects of implementing the RMP decisions through a supplementary rule. The BLM prepared a Determination of NEPA Adequacy to confirm that the prior analyses and public comment processes were sufficient to inform the decision to establish this supplementary rule. Therefore, additional NEPA analysis is not required. Copies of the Environmental Impact Statements and RODs for each RMP and the Determination of NEPA Adequacy for this final supplementary rule are on file at the BLM offices (see ADDRESSES ) and electronic copies are available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/90071/510.

This final supplementary rule does not comprise a significant energy action. This final supplementary rule will not have an adverse effect on energy supply, production, or consumption and has no connection with energy policy.

In developing this final supplementary rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).

In accordance with E.O. 13352, the BLM has determined that the final supplementary rule will not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; will take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; will properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and will provide that the associated programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.

The principal author of this final supplementary rule is Erin Jones, Deputy District Manager BLM Upper Colorado River District Office.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 1740, and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the State Director establishes the following supplementary rule for public lands and facilities managed by the Colorado River Valley Field Office, Grand Junction Field Office, Kremmling Field Office, and Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA).

(1) As used in this Supplementary Rule, the term:

Approved portable toilet means any non-biodegradable, durable container designated to receive and hold human waste, in any container position without leaking, and equipped with a dumping system that allows the container to be emptied into a standard receiving or dump system designed for that purpose (such as a SCAT machine or recreational vehicle dump station), in a sanitary manner, without spills, seepage, or human exposure to human waste, or any approved biodegradable landfill-approved bag system designed for landfill or garbage can disposal (such as a “WAG” bag, a human waste disposal bag).

ATV (all terrain vehicle) means a motorized off-highway vehicle 50 inches (1 1/4 m) or less in width, traveling on four or more low-pressure tires, having a single seat to be straddled by the operator and a handlebar for steering control.

Camp means erecting a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material; preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material; parking a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer; or mooring a vessel for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy.

Campfire means a controlled fire occurring out of doors, used for cooking, branding, personal warmth, lighting, ceremonial, or aesthetic purposes.

Designated campsite means a BLM-designated campsite, marked with a visible number or identification mounted on a post or placard. Designated sites may be undeveloped or developed with basic amenities.

Developed recreation site. See definition at 43 CFR 8360.0-5(c).

Developed toilet facility means a vault-type, pit, or portable toilet provided by the BLM or its partners.

Dispersed campsite means an undesignated campsite not located in a campground that is traditionally used for camping.

Firearm means a weapon, by whatever name known, that is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder; and be readily capable of use as a weapon.

Fire pan means a durable metal pan at least 12 inches in diameter with at least a 1.5-inch lip around its outer edge and sufficient to contain fire and fire remains containing fire, charcoal, and ash, while preventing ashes or burning material from spilling onto the ground, and that is elevated above the ground.

Fire ring means a ring designed to contain a fire on the ground, constructed of non-flammable, natural or manmade materials, that is not considered a designated trash receptacle.

Intent to camp means any off-loading or preparing for use of common overnight equipment, such as tents, sleeping bags or bedding, food, cooking or dining equipment, or lighting equipment, or preparing common camping equipment for use in or on any boat.

Mechanized travel means moving by means of a mechanical device, such as a bicycle or game retrieval cart, not powered by a motor.

Motorized travel means moving in vehicles propelled by motors or engines, such as cars, trucks, off-highway vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and boats.

OHV (off highway vehicle) means all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), utility terrain vehicles (UTVs), and snowmobiles.

Over-snow vehicle means a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow.

Public lands means any lands and interests in lands owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except for:

(a) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf and

(b) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

Recreational target shooting means target shooting that uses any devices to propel a projectile, including but not limited to firearms, bow and arrow, sling shots, paint ball guns, and air guns. Target shooting is not considered hunting. Hunting with a valid hunting license is allowed in areas that are closed to target shooting.

Resource damage means impacts to natural resources or public lands due to injury, destruction, or loss of natural resources, resulting in the necessary restoration or replacement of such natural resources.

Sport rock climbing means a style of climbing that relies on fixed protection against falls, usually bolts and/or top anchors.

Target means an object constructed of wood, paper, or biodegradable materials, or commercially manufactured and designed for target shooting, and that may be supported by a target frame ( e.g., metal or PVC frame).

Target backstop means an unobstructed earthen mound, bank, or other feature that must stop the progress of and contain all projectiles, fragments, and ricochets in a safe manner.

UTV (utility terrain vehicle) means a motorized vehicle designed for off-highway use and capable of manuevering over uneven terrain, designed with side-by-side seats, seatbelts, steering wheel, four or more low pressure tires, and a rollover protection system.

Vehicle means any motorized transportation conveyance designed and licensed for use on roadways, such as an automobile, bus, motorcycle, or truck, and any motorized conveyance originally equipped with safety belts.

WAG bag means any approved, commercially engineered, biodegradable, landfill-approved bag system containing enzymes, polymers, or waste-alleviating gelling compounds that is designed for landfill or garbage can disposal (such as a “Waste Alleviation and Gelling” bag, a human waste disposal bag). The bag system must be made of puncture resistant material, must be spill proof, hygienic, and approved for disposal in any garbage can.

(2) As used in this final supplementary rule, the following additional acronyms apply:

Unless otherwise authorized, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands, roads, trails, and waterways administered by the Colorado River Valley Field Office, Grand Junction Field Office, Kremmling Field Office, and Dominguez-Escalante NCA.

(1) You must not abandon animal carcasses, or any part of an animal carcass, within 100 feet of the outer perimeter of any campsite (designated or dispersed) or 100 feet from the edge of any roadway or any water source.

(2) You must not operate mechanical transport ( e.g., bicycles, mountain bikes) other than on designated roads and trails allowing such use or in designated-open areas and within designated-open timeframes.

(3) You must not have a campfire outside of a designated campsite in the following areas:

(4) You must not camp outside of designated campsites and developed campgrounds in the following areas:

(5) Equestrian travel is prohibited on or in the following trails and areas:

(6) Recreational target shooting is prohibited on the following BLM-managed lands to protect visitor safety (discharge of firearms, other weapons, and fireworks on developed recreation sites and areas is prohibited under 43 CFR 8365.2-5(a)):

(7) Overnight use is prohibited in the following areas (day-use allowed only):

(8) The following areas are closed to mechanized travel during the specified timeframes to protect wintering big game species:

(1) You must not engage in target shooting without a target backstop.

(2) You must not build or maintain a fire more than 3 feet in diameter, unless otherwise authorized.

(3) Unless the campsite is marked and designated by the BLM, you must not camp within 100 feet from any spring, pond, lake, or perennial stream.

(4) You must keep dogs and other domesticated animals on a leash or other similar constraint ( e.g., voice control, shock collar) where indicated by a BLM sign, brochure, or map. This regulation does not apply to livestock-working or hunting dogs engaged in those activities. You must remove and properly dispose of all pet waste from developed recreation sites and areas.

(5) You must not cut live or dead standing trees unless otherwise permitted. You may collect only dead and down wood for campfires.

(6) You must not camp or otherwise occupy any location or site for more than 7 consecutive days from April 1 to August 31, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(7) You must not camp or otherwise occupy any location or site for more than 14 consecutive days between September 1 and March 31, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(8) In areas with limited travel designations, mechanized travel is limited to designated routes.

(9) In areas with limited travel designations, mechanized and motorized travel up to 300 feet from designated motorized or mechanized routes is permitted for direct access to dispersed campsites provided that:

(a) No resource damage occurs;

(b) No new routes beyond the campsite are created; and

(c) Such access is not otherwise prohibited (such as in WSAs).

(10) In areas open for over-snow travel, travel off designated routes is prohibited unless a minimum of 12 inches of snow cover exists and no resource damage will occur from over-snow travel.

(11) In the Thompson Creek ERMA:

(a) You may reestablish old rock-climbing routes and permanent fixed climbing anchors (bolts and pitons) only at the BLM-recognized sport rock climbing area (rock fins, narrow walls of hard sedimentary rock).

(b) You must not develop additional bolted routes outside of the BLM-recognized sport rock climbing area.

(c) You may use mechanical devices ( e.g., power drills) only at the BLM-recognized sport rock climbing area.

(d) You must not exceed a climbing group size (per route) of four people per day, including staff, at the BLM-recognized sport rock climbing area.

(12) In the Upper Colorado SRMA:

(a) You must not exceed a group size of 25 people per group (including guides) for commercial and private river groups.

(b) You must not camp or display an intent to camp during an overnight river trip without an approved fire pan.

(c) You must not camp, or display an intent to camp, overnight without an approved portable toilet.

(d) You must carry and use an approved portable toilet on an overnight trip. The system must be adequate for the size of the group and length of the trip. All solid human bodily waste, including WAG bags, must be contained in a leak-proof, hard-sided container with a screw-on or ratchet-locking lid.

(e) You must not fail to set up an approved portable toilet, ready for use, as soon as practical upon arriving at the campsite to be occupied on an overnight trip if a toilet facility (porta-potty or vault toilet) is not provided by the BLM.

(f) You must not empty an approved portable toilet into a developed toilet facility, or any other facility not developed and identified especially for that purpose. Leaving solid human waste on public lands or dumping it into vault toilets is prohibited. Only WAG-bag systems (see definition) may be disposed of in trash receptacles at BLM-managed facilities.

(g) You must remove and properly dispose of all pet waste from developed recreation sites and areas.

(13) On the Sutey Ranch:

(a) You must not enter from December 1 through April 15 when closure orders are in effect to protect wintering big game, except when allowed under other applicable laws.

(b) You must not harvest timber, firewood, or special forest products.

(c) You must not travel by mechanized vehicle from October 1 through May 31.

(1) You must not engage in target shooting without a target backstop.

(2) You must use an approved portable toilet at designated undeveloped sites in the following areas: North Fruita Desert SRMA, Bangs SRMA RMZ 2, and Dolores River SRMA.

(3) You must not enter the Pyramid Rock ACEC.

(4) You must not travel via any mode of transport (including foot and horse travel) off designated routes in the following areas: Bangs SRMA RMZ 1 north of Little Park Road and Andy's Loop, and Gunnison River Bluffs ERMA.

(5) You must not collect dead and down wood in the following areas, except for campfire use: Unaweep lands with wilderness characteristics area; riparian areas; Pyramid Rock ACEC; Unaweep Seep ACEC; Bangs SRMA RMZ 2.

(6) You must collect only dead and down wood for campfires in the North Desert ERMA.

(7) You must not harvest timber or cut firewood in the following areas: Bangs SRMA RMZ 1; RMZ 3; RMZ 4; North Fruita Desert SRMA; Palisade Rim SRMA.

(8) You must not exceed the following group-size limits, including guides and dogs, without written authorization from the BLM: 12 in WSAs and areas managed to protect wilderness characteristics; and 25 for more than 2 hours in the remaining lands managed by the Grand Junction Field Office. For groups that exceed these limits, you must contact the BLM prior to the outing so that the BLM can determine whether an organized group Special Recreation Permit is required.

(9) You must have campfires within agency-provided fire rings or approved fire pans at designated undeveloped sites in the following areas: Dolores River SRMA, Bangs SRMA RMZ 2, North Fruita Desert SRMA.

(10) You must not install permanent climbing anchors that do not match the color of the rock surface (fixtures, hardware, and webbing, etc.).

(1) You must not engage in target shooting without a target backstop.

(2) You must not empty or dispose of sewage and/or gray water held in a containment tank on public lands or at any facility not specifically identified for such disposal.

(3) You must not build or maintain a fire more than 3 feet in diameter, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(4) You must not leave, deposit, or scatter human waste, toilet paper, or items used as toilet paper, when an approved portable toilet or developed toilet facility is available. Where a developed toilet facility is not provided, and an approved portable toilet is not required, all human waste and toilet paper, or material used as toilet paper, must be buried at least 6 inches below the surface of the ground in natural soil, and at least 100 feet from the edge of a river or any other water source.

(5) You must not dig in or level the ground at any campsite.

(6) In areas open to dispersed camping, you must not camp outside of designated sites within 50 feet of any spring, pond, lake, or perennial stream.

(7) You must keep dogs and other domesticated animals on a leash or other similar constraint ( e.g., voice control, shock collar). This regulation does not apply to livestock-working or hunting dogs engaged in those activities. You must remove and properly dispose of all pet waste from developed recreation sites and areas.

(8) Fuel wood collection is prohibited in developed recreation areas. Fuel wood for recreational campfires outside of developed recreation areas is limited to dead and downed vegetation, unless otherwise prohibited.

(9) You must not camp or otherwise occupy any location or site for more than 7 consecutive days from April 1 to August 31, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(10) You must not camp or otherwise occupy any location or site for more than 14 consecutive days between September 1 and March 31, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(11) In areas open for over-snow travel in the field office, travel off designated routes is prohibited unless a minimum of 12 inches of snow cover exists and no resource damage will occur from over-snow travel.

(12) In areas with limited travel designations, mechanized travel is limited to designated routes.

(13) In areas with limited travel designations, motorized and mechanized travel (bicycles) are allowed up to 300 feet from designated motorized or mechanized transport routes for direct access to dispersed campsites or parking provided that:

(a) No resource damage occurs;

(b) No new routes are created; and

(c) Such access is not otherwise prohibited.

(14) In the Wolford Mountain Travel Management Area, motorized and mechanized travel (bicycles) is allowed up to 50 feet from designated motorized or mechanized routes for direct access to dispersed campsites or parking provided that:

(a) No resource damage occurs;

(b) No new routes are created; and

(c) Such access is not otherwise prohibited.

(15) In the North Sand Hills SRMA:

(a) You must not park a vehicle in such a manner as to impede or obstruct the normal flow of traffic or create a hazardous condition.

(b) You must obey posted parking closures or restrictions.

(c) You must not operate a motor vehicle or OHV in excess of the posted speed limit, or in excess of 15 mph around camping areas, 50 feet from any campsite, parked vehicle(s), person(s), or animal(s).

(d) You must not possess or use any glass container on the open sand dunes or trails. Persons may possess glass containers within the confines of their camping area.

(e) You must not cut, collect, or use live, dead, or down wood.

(16) In the Wolford Mountain SRMA:

(a) You must possess and use a hazardous materials spill kit, if necessary, during travel on the Sidewinder Extreme 4x4 trail.

(b) Travel is allowed on the Sidewinder Extreme 4x4 trail only when the top 1 inch of soil is dry and there is no rutting.

(17) In the Upper Colorado River SRMA:

(a) You must not camp, or display intent to camp overnight, without an approved portable toilet.

(b) You must carry and use an approved portable toilet when on an overnight trip. The system must be adequate for the size of the group and length of the trip. The toilet system must be a reusable, washable, leak-proof toilet system that allows for the carry-out and disposal of solid human body waste in a responsible and lawful manner and must be accessible during the trip.

(c) All solid human waste, including WAG bags, must be contained in a leak-proof, animal-proof, hard-sided container with a screw-on or ratchet-locking lid.

(d) You must set up an approved portable toilet, ready for use, as soon as practical upon arriving at the campsite to be occupied on an overnight trip. You must not empty an approved portable toilet into a developed toilet facility, or any other facility not developed and identified especially for that purpose. Leaving solid human waste on public lands or dumping it into vault toilets or trash receptacles at BLM-managed facilities is prohibited.

(e) You must not camp or display intent to camp during an overnight river trip without an approved fire pan.

(f) You must not build, ignite, maintain, or use a campfire not contained in an approved fire pan.

(g) You must not leave fresh fire ash produced from a campfire in a fire pan or in a constructed, permanently installed metal fire pit provided by the BLM except at the Pumphouse, Radium, and State Bridge Recreation Sites. Fire blankets under fire pans to facilitate total ash removal are recommended but are not required.

(h) You must remove and properly dispose of all pet waste from developed recreation sites and areas.

(i) You must not launch or take out a vessel in areas signed as prohibiting those activities.

(j) You must not cut, collect, or use live, dead, or down wood except driftwood.

(1) You must not engage in target shooting without a target backstop.

(2) You must not install permanent climbing anchors in outstanding geologic features identified on a BLM sign or map.

(3) You must not place or maintain permanent climbing anchors inside the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area without a permit from the BLM.

(4) You must not install permanent climbing anchors that do not match the color of the rock surface (fixtures, hardware, and webbing, etc.).

(5) You must not collect or harvest firewood or native species in riparian and wetland areas, except for driftwood.

(6) You must not possess domestic goats.

(7) You must keep all domestic dogs on leashes, except those actively working on a livestock operation in Wilderness Zone 1 and in the Escalante Triangle RMZ in the Sawmill Mesa ERMA (after the loop trail system is constructed).

(8) You must not exceed group-size limit of 25 people in Wilderness Zone 1.

(9) You must not exceed a group-size limit of 12 people in Wilderness Zones 2 and 3.

(10) You must pack out all solid human waste in Wilderness Zone 2.

(11) You must pack out solid human waste or bury solid human waste in a cathole of at least 6 inches deep and more than 100 meters (approximately 383 feet) from natural water sources (rivers, creeks, springs, and seeps) in Wilderness Zone 3.

(12) You must not place recreational geocaches without BLM authorization prior to placement.

(13) You must not use a metal detector.

(14) You must not use a paintball gun.

(15) You must not use glass containers in the Potholes Recreation Site (Escalante Canyon) and Gunnison River SRMA.

(16) Consistent with Public Law 111-11, you must not remove minerals from the NCA.

(17) You must pack out solid human waste and fire ash. You must use portable toilet systems and fire pans for all overnight camping in undeveloped camp sites in the following RMAs: Gunnison River, Cactus Park, Escalante Canyon.

(18) You must not rock climb ( e.g. bouldering, scrambling, trad climbing, or sport climbing) in the East Creek RMA or Escalante Canyon RMA in areas or on routes marked as closed by the BLM.

(19) You must not ride a horse, donkey, mule, or burro in Wilderness Zone 1 except on existing routes identified on a BLM sign or map.

(20) In the Gunnison River RMA:

(a) Motorized boat use is prohibited at BLM boat ramps and at campsites from May 1 through Labor Day Weekend.

(b) You must not have your dog off leash at boat ramps or the mouth of Dominguez Canyon.

(c) Exceeding a group size of 25 on the river (including guides and dogs) is prohibited.

(d) You must not camp outside of designated campsites.

(e) Non-boating overnight camping is prohibited at the mouth of Dominguez Canyon from May 1 through Labor Day Weekend.

(f) You must not camp more than 7 consecutive nights, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(21) In the Ninemile Hill Recreation Management Area (RMA):

(a) You must not camp outside of designated campsites. Dispersed camping is allowed outside of designated campsites, so long as such camping takes place at least a 1/4 mile (approximately 1320 feet) away from designated motorized routes.

(b) You must not camp for more than 7 consecutive days, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

(22) In the Cactus Park RMA:

(a) You must not camp outside of designated campsites.

(b) You must not camp for more than 7 consecutive days from April 1 through Labor Day Weekend unless otherwise authorized by the BLM.

(23) In the Hunting Ground RMA, you must not camp for more than 7 consecutive days, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the BLM.

The following persons are exempt from this supplementary rule: Federal, State, or local officers or employees acting within the scope of their official duties; members of any organized law enforcement, military, rescue or fire fighting force performing an official duty; and persons whose activities are authorized in writing by the BLM.

Any person who violates any part of this supplementary rule may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Colorado law.

The BLM is establishing this supplementary rule under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, which authorizes BLM State Directors to establish supplementary rules for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources.

In 2015, the TRFO approved a Resource Management Plan (RMP) to replace portions of the San Juan/San Miguel RMP that are within the jurisdiction of the TRFO (previously known as the San Juan Resource Area). The two approved RMPs and Records of Decision provide direction on how the BLM will manage public lands in Archuleta, La Plata, Montezuma, Dolores, San Miguel, Montrose, Gunnison, San Juan, Ouray, and Hinsdale counties, Colorado, except for public lands that are within the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument, which is managed under a separate RMP approved in 2010. During the public planning and analysis processes for the TRFO RMP, the BLM identified the need to establish a supplementary rule to provide for visitor health and safety and to protect cultural, wildlife, and natural resources on public lands managed by the BLM.

The TRFO RMP carries forward decisions in the Dolores River Corridor Management Plan (CMP) and the Alpine Triangle Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), which were approved in 1990 and 2010, respectively. The Silverton Travel Management Plan (TMP) and the TRFO Transportation and Access Plan for Travel Area 1 (TAP1) were both approved in 2020.

Over the past 10 years, the BLM has recorded increases in visitation numbers and subsequent pressures to Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), critical winter wildlife habitat areas, and archaeological sites throughout the TRFO and GFO. To address the growing concerns, the BLM is establishing this supplementary rule to implement decisions in the five management plans to protect visitor health and safety and prevent natural and cultural resource degradation.

When the BLM adopted the TRFO RMP, the plan included BLM-managed lands that are now under the jurisdiction of the GFO due to changes in the TRFO and GFO boundaries. Neither the TRFO RMP nor the GFO RMP have been updated to reflect these changes; thus, the rule will also apply to BLM-managed lands now administered by the GFO in parts of Hinsdale, San Juan, and Ouray counties.

Several sections of the rule will implement decisions spanning all public lands managed by the BLM in the TRFO and GFO. Other sections will apply only to specific types of BLM-managed lands, such as SRMAs or critical winter wildlife habitat areas experiencing the most visitation. The rule will only address land use limitations and restrictions previously proposed, analyzed, and approved as part of the public planning processes for the TRFO RMP, Dolores River CMP, Alpine Triangle RAMP, Silverton TMP, and TRFO TAP1, and their associated environmental impact statements (EIS) or environmental assessments (EA). The BLM developed the five management plans with extensive input from the public, Tribes, and elected officials through scoping, opportunities for public comment, and resource advisory committee meetings. The BLM took the following steps to involve the public in developing the plans that are the basis for this final supplementary rule:

1. The TRFO RMP was initially a joint agency planning effort by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service, which included extensive public participation in determining appropriate uses in the planning area. Public comments and input received during all planning stages resulted in the BLM fine-tuning the TRFO RMP, which applies only to public lands managed by the BLM.

2. Public participation for the Dolores River CMP was a coordinated effort consisting of a task force of people representing diverse interests, including local governments, private landowners, wildlife and fishing enthusiasts, resource conservationists, and private and commercial boaters. In addition, the BLM hosted several public meetings in local communities surrounding the planning area to consider options for managing the river canyon.

3. Public participation was vital to developing the Alpine Triangle RAMP. The BLM developed and implemented a public involvement strategy to obtain input from a diverse group of stakeholders and set the stage for community support.

4. The public involvement effort for the Silverton TMP included opportunities for the public to provide feedback during scoping and review of the EA and a BLM open house public meeting at Kendall Mountain in Silverton, Colorado.

5. To develop the TRFO TAP1, the BLM met with various individuals, organizations, and interest groups representing motorized, equestrian, and mechanized users as well as conservation organizations. The BLM also hosted open-house meetings to solicit initial public input.

The BLM published a proposed supplementary rule on February 28, 2024 (89 FR 14606) and received 24 comments during the 60-day public comment period. Five commenters expressed support for the supplementary rule.

One commenter expressed opposition to proposed rules restricting mechanized travel and indicated that the rule is an affront to accessibility for people unable to walk or bike. Under proposed Rules 1, 4, 8, and 12, mechanized travel is allowed on designated routes. Proposed Rules 5 and 7 prohibit all mechanized travel within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area, designated Wilderness Study Areas, and the Coyote Wash and Snaggletooth lands with wilderness characteristics. Proposed Rule 4 prohibits mechanized vehicles within the Willow Creek Wildlife Management Area from December 1 through June 30 each year. The proposed rule's definition of mechanized travel exempts wheelchairs from mechanized-travel restrictions. Any change to the mechanized travel restrictions would require the BLM to amend the underlying RMP. The BLM did not revise the final supplementary rule in response to this comment.

One commenter indicated that proposed rule 24, which states that “You must register at a developed BLM river launch point prior to watercraft use from Bradfield Bridge to Bedrock,” is unclear. In response, the BLM is clarifying the language in the final rule to read that the rule applies only to river trips. The same commenter stated that the rule cannot apply to private lands. The proposed rule already stipulates that it applies only to specified BLM public lands as does the final rule, so no change is needed.

One commenter stated that the TRFO RMP does not have a Phil's World Recreation Management Zone (RMZ), does not specify that wildlife closures are to be lifted on April 15 of each year, and does not have restrictions for domestic animals in the Cortez SRMA, Durango SRMA, or Silverton SRMA. In response to this comment, the final rule changes the reference to “Phil's World RMZ” in proposed Rule 16 to the “Phil's World Area.” Lifting wildlife closures on April 15 is specific to the annual Durango area wildlife closures as set forth in the TRFO RMP. Restrictions pertaining to domestic animals are detailed in Appendix E of the TRFO RMP.

One commenter disputed the proposed requirement in Rule 15 that, particularly within the Silverton SRMA, domestic animals such as dogs must be controlled by leash or voice command to prevent negative interactions between recreationalists and sheep herds, including the dogs used to protect them. The commenter indicated that the rule should apply to the dogs used to protect the sheep as well and that sheepherders should consider using less aggressive dog breeds. Any change to the decisions that domestic animals be leashed and under voice control in the Silverton SRMA would require the BLM to amend the underlying RMP. The BLM did not revise the final rule in response to this comment.

A form email received from 14 individuals expressed general concerns with what they view as arbitrary dates for closures, group size limits, and camping limitations and indicated that they do not want to see additional restrictions in the Dolores River corridor. The commenters further indicated that, if a certain amount of acreage is restricted to overnight camping, the BLM needs to open additional acreage somewhere else to accommodate the growing number of recreation users on public lands.

Rules that have user-restriction dates are for winter wildlife closures, which are needed to reduce stress and impacts on wildlife. The restricted dates were analyzed as part of the Tres Rios RMP and correspond with the dates set by Colorado Parks and Wildlife for winter wildlife closures on State-managed public lands. Rules that have group-size limits are for river trips within the Dolores River corridor and were analyzed in the Dolores River CMP. Rules that have camping limitations are in place in the Cortez SRMA, the Durango SRMA, and within the Alpine Triangle. In the Cortez SRMA, the Phil's World and Mud Springs areas are designated as day-use areas. Camping is available elsewhere within the Cortez SRMA. The Durango SRMA is in the urban interface with the City of Durango, and dispersed camping is available on BLM-managed public lands within a short distance from the Durango SRMA. In the Alpine Triangle, camping is only restricted around historic sites, and dispersed camping is allowed throughout the rest of the area and in developed campgrounds. Rules stipulating wildlife closure dates, group size limits, and camping restrictions were established in the five management plans and cannot be changed without plan amendments.

One commenter indicated that proposed rule number 27, which states that “You must not gather dead or down wood,” should be clearer. In response to this comment, the BLM has revised the final rule to clarify that only the collection and burning of driftwood during river trips is prohibited, as specified in the Dolores River CMP.

The final supplementary rule will apply only to public lands and facilities managed by the TRFO and the GFO.

The decisions from the five management plans that this final supplementary rule will implement are focused on protecting public health and safety and preventing damage to natural and cultural resources. The five management plans include decisions concerning restrictions, prohibitions, and allowable uses to address identified issues or achieve management goals and objectives. For these decisions to be effectively implemented, enforcement is needed, first to ensure the management decisions are properly understood and followed, and second to provide for civil and criminal penalties should these restrictions and prohibitions not be followed. Most public land users will not notice meaningful changes as many of the sections of the supplementary rule have been long-held recommendations that will now become regulations.

The final supplementary rule is not a significant regulatory action and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866 as amended by E.O. 14094. The final supplementary rule will not have an annual effect of $200 million or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. The final supplementary rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The final supplementary rule will not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. The final rule merely establishes rules of conduct for public use on a limited area of public lands.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601-612), to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The BLM considered economic impacts at the time the land use plans were developed and these impacts were deemed to be minimal. The BLM expects impacts from this final rule to affect a small number of outfitters and have only a minor socioeconomic impact relative to the area's overall economy.

The requirements contained within this final supplementary rule are based on decisions the BLM made when it developed five land-use management plans between 1990 and 2015. This final rule codifies those decisions so that the BLM can ensure the public properly understands and follows them. This final rule also provides for civil and criminal penalties should the public not follow these restrictions and prohibitions. Most public land users, including small businesses that operate on BLM-managed public lands, will not notice any meaningful changes as many of the sections of the supplementary rule have been long-held recommendations that the public has largely been following. These recommendations will now become regulations. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA the final supplementary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final supplementary rule is not “major” as defined under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This final supplementary rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year, nor will it have a significant or unique effect on small governments. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

The final supplementary rule is not a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The final supplementary rule does not address property rights in any form and will not cause the impairment of constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined the final supplementary rule will not cause a “taking” of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive order.

The final supplementary rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The final supplementary rule does not conflict with any State law or regulation. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, the BLM has determined the supplementary rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Under E.O. 12988, the BLM has determined the final supplementary rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order are met.

In accordance with E.O. 13175, the BLM has determined the final supplementary rule does not include policies that have Tribal implications and will have no bearing on trust lands or on lands for which title is held in fee status by American Indian Tribes or U.S. Government-owned lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Since the supplementary rule does not involve Indian reservation lands or resources, the BLM has determined government-to-government relationships remain unaffected.

The final supplementary rule does not contain information collection requirements the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521.

The final supplementary rule will allow the BLM to implement and enforce key decisions in the TRFO RMP, the Dolores River CMP, the Alpine Triangle RAMP, the Silverton TMP, and the TRFO TAP1 within TRFO and GFO. The supplementary rule will not change the NEPA analysis or decisions set forth in each of the plans. During the NEPA review for each of these planning efforts, the BLM fully analyzed the effects of this final supplementary rule in their respective NEPA documents:

The BLM prepared a Determination of NEPA Adequacy to confirm that the prior analyses and public comment processes were sufficient to inform the decision to establish this supplementary rule. Therefore, additional NEPA analysis is not required. Copies of the NEPA analysis and relevant decision document for each of the aforementioned plans, and the Determination of NEPA Adequacy for this supplementary rulemaking, are on file at the BLM offices at the addresses specified in the ADDRESSES section and electronic copies are available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/96401/510.

In developing the final supplementary rule, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).

The final supplementary rule does not comprise a significant energy action. The final supplementary rule will not have an adverse effect on energy supply, production, or consumption and have no connection with energy policy.

In accordance with E.O. 13352, the BLM has determined the final supplementary rule will not impede facilitating cooperative conservation; will take appropriate account of and consider the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; will properly accommodate local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and will provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.

The principal author of the final supplementary rule is Tyler Fouss, Field Staff Ranger, Bureau of Land Management, Tres Rios Field Office, Colorado.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authorities for supplementary rules at 43 U.S.C. 1733, 43 U.S.C. 1740, and 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the BLM Colorado State Director establishes this Supplementary Rule for public lands managed by the BLM in the Tres Rios Field Office and the Gunnison Field Office, to read as follows:

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) has the same meaning as it does at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(a).

Campfire has the same meaning as it does at 43 CFR 8360.0-5(b).

Camping means the erecting of a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, parking of a motor vehicle, motor home or trailer, or mooring of a vessel, for the apparent purpose of recreational overnight occupancy.

Designated travel route means roads and trails open to specified modes of travel and identified on a map of designated roads and trails available for public inspection at the BLM Tres Rios Field Office, Colorado. Designated roads and trails are open to public OHV use in accordance with such limits and restrictions as are, or may be, specified in the RMP or a Travel Management Plan (TMP), or in future decisions implementing the RMP. This definition excludes any road or trail with BLM-authorized restrictions preventing use of the road or trail. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, signs or physical barriers such as gates, fences, posts, branches, or rocks.

Fire pan means a metal container capable of containing a campfire for purposes of containing all ash and protecting the underlying soils from scorching.

Herd Management Area means those lands under the supervision of the Bureau of Land Management managed for the maintenance of wild horse and burro herds.

Historic structure means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria. The term “eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places” includes both properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet National Register of Historic Places listing criteria.

Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics means those lands that have been:

(1) Inventoried and determined by the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act; and

(2) Identified to protect those characteristics through a land use planning process and subsequent Record of Decision.

Mechanized vehicle means any device propelled solely by human power, upon which a person, or persons, may ride on land, having any wheels, with the exception of a wheelchair.

Motorized vehicle means any vehicle propelled by a motor or engine, capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, such as a car, truck, off-highway vehicle, motorcycle, or snowmobile. Off-highway vehicle has the same meaning as it does in 43 CFR 8340.0-5(a).

Portable toilet means a washable, leak-proof, reusable toilet system that allows for the carry-out and disposal of solid human body waste in a responsible and lawful manner; the system must be adequate for the size of the group and length of the trip. If a Wag Bag system is used it must be in a hard-sided, clamped or screw top container—not a dry bag.

Public lands has the same meaning as it does at 43 U.S.C. 1702(e).

Resource damage means damage to or disturbance of the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, improvements, cultural, or vegetative resources.

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) means an administrative unit where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance and/or distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation.

Wilderness Study Area (WSA) means an area that has been identified as a Wilderness Study Area in either the Gunnison or TRFO RMPs.

Unless otherwise authorized, the following acts are prohibited on all public lands, roads, trails, and waterways administered by the BLM within the areas defined:

Within the Cortez Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), the Dolores River SRMA, the Durango SRMA, the Ancestral Puebloan Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), the Gypsum Valley ACEC, the Mesa Verde Escarpment ACEC, the Perins Peak and Willow Creek Wildlife Management Areas, the Spring Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area, as identified in the TRFO RMP:

1. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use, unless you are using a mechanized game cart to retrieve a large game animal with a valid carcass tag. Game carts are not allowed within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area.

2. You must not use vehicles designed for traveling over snow unless there is adequate snow cover to protect the underlying vegetation and soils from the impact of that use. This use is prohibited in designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), or lands with wilderness characteristics that are managed to protect wilderness characteristics, in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as critical big game winter relief and winter concentration areas, or areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.

3. You must not operate or possess a motorized vehicle beginning 2.4 miles north of the San Miguel/Dolores County line on the section of Road 14F vacated by San Miguel County (road vacated 2.4 miles north of the San Miguel/Dolores County line for a distance of 2.4 miles) from February 1 through May 1 each year to protect Desert Bighorn Sheep lambing, within the Dolores River SRMA.

4. You must not operate a mechanized vehicle within the Willow Creek Wildlife Management Area from December 1 through June 30 each year for the protection of Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat.

5. You must not operate a mechanized vehicle within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area.

6. You must not hike, ride, or be in possession of horses or other pack animals on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use within the Ancestral Puebloan ACEC and Mesa Verde Escarpment ACEC. Hiking and horseback riding is allowed both on and off designated travel routes throughout the remainder of the area managed by the Tres Rios Field Office.

7. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle.

8. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use, unless you are using a mechanized game cart to retrieve a large game animal with a valid carcass tag. Game carts are not allowed within the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area.

9. You must not park or use a motorized or mechanized vehicle more than 100 feet from the edge of a designated travel route ( e.g., for such uses as camping, picnicking, or firewood cutting) as identified in the Travel Management Plan and travel management maps and firewood cutting map.

10. You must not park a motorized vehicle more than 20 feet from the edge of a designated travel route or in a manner that causes resource damage in the Chutes and Ladders portion of the Cortez SRMA or the Mahan area within La Plata County.

11. You must not use vehicles designed for traveling over snow unless there is adequate snow cover to protect the underlying vegetation and soils from the impact of that use. This use is prohibited in designated Wilderness, WSAs, or other lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as critical big game winter relief and winter concentration areas, or in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.

12. You must not operate or possess a mechanized vehicle on any route, trail, or area not designated as open to such use unless you are using a mechanized game cart to retrieve a large game animal with a valid carcass tag outside of designated WSAs, or congressionally designated Wilderness Areas.

13. You must not park a motorized vehicle more than 30 feet from the edge of a designated travel route or in a manner that causes resource damage.

14. You must not use vehicles designed for traveling over snow unless there is adequate snow cover to protect the underlying vegetation and soils from the impact of that use. This use is prohibited in designated WSAs, congressionally designated Wilderness areas, and other lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. This use is also prohibited in areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as critical big game winter relief and winter concentration areas or areas designated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife as occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.

15. Domestic animals must be on a leash or under voice command.

16. You must not enter or use the area within the Phil's World Area and Mud Springs RMZ portion of the Cortez SRMA 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise unless:

a. You are using the non-motorized trails within the Phil's World Area; or

b. You are a licensed hunter and acting in accordance with all rules and regulations as defined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

17. You must not enter or use the area 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise within the Animas City Mountain, Skyline, and Grandview Recreation Management Zones of the Durango SRMA, except if you are a licensed hunter and acting in accordance with all rules and regulations as defined by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

18. You must not build, ignite, maintain, or attend to a fire or campfire within the Animas City Mountain, Skyline, and Grandview Recreation Management Zones of the Durango SRMA.

19. You must not camp within 300 feet of the Animas Forks district boundary and the Gold Prince Mill National Register Districts.

20. You must not camp within 150 feet of a historic structure.

21. You must not ignite or maintain a campfire within 150 feet of a historic structure.

22. You must not ignite or maintain a campfire above 12,000 feet within the Redcloud Peak ACEC.

23. You must not use motorized watercraft from Bradfield Bridge to Bedrock.

24. During river trips, you must register at a developed BLM river launch point or with the Tres Rios Field Office prior to watercraft use from Bradfield Bridge to Bedrock.

25. During river trips, you must not exceed posted group-size limits.

26. During overnight river trips, you must dispose of human waste into a portable toilet.

27. You must not gather or burn driftwood.

28. You must not have a campfire or charcoal fire without the use of a fire pan.

29. You must pack out all ashes associated with a campfire or charcoal fire.

30. You must not enter the Chutes-n-Ladders, Summit, and Aqueduct areas of the Montezuma Triangle Recreation Management Zone within the Cortez SRMA from December 1 through April 30 each year for the protection of critical winter wildlife habitat. Travel on county roads through the areas is allowed.

31. You must not enter identified closure areas in the Animas City Mountain and Grandview Ridge Recreation Management Zones of the Durango SRMA from December 1 through April 30 each year for the protection of critical winter wildlife habitat. This closure may be opened April 15 if conditions and wildlife needs warrant.

32. You must not enter identified closure areas in the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area from December 1 through April 30 each year for the protection of critical winter wildlife habitat. This closure may be opened April 15 if conditions and wildlife needs warrant.

33. You must not enter identified closure areas in the Perins Peak Wildlife Management Area from March 15 through July 31 each year for the protection of critical raptor habitat.

The following persons are exempt from this supplementary rule: any Federal, State, or local officers or employees acting within the scope of their official duties; members of any organized law enforcement, military, rescue, or fire-fighting force performing an official duty; and any persons who are expressly authorized or approved by the BLM Authorized Officer.

Any person who violates any part of this supplementary rule may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Colorado or local law.

FRA is issuing this rulemaking as required by the Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 20171. 1 The Act provides that a railroad freight car, wholly manufactured on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of issuance of regulations, may only operate on the U.S. general railroad system if: (1) the railroad freight car is manufactured, assembled, and substantially transformed, as applicable, by a qualified manufacturer in a qualified facility; (2) none of the sensitive technology located on the railroad freight car, including components necessary to the functionality of the sensitive technology, originates from a COC or is sourced from a SOE; and (3) none of the content of the railroad freight car, excluding sensitive technology, originates from a country of concern (COC) or is sourced from a state-owned enterprise (SOE) that has been determined by a recognized court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction and legal authority to have violated or infringed valid U.S. intellectual property rights of another including such a finding by a Federal district court under title 35 or the U.S. International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). 2

The Act further provides percentage limitations on freight car contents so that not later than one year after the date of issuance of regulations, a newly manufactured railroad freight car, even if complying with the requirements in the preceding paragraph, may not operate on the U.S. general railroad system if more than 20 percent of the content of the railroad freight car, calculated by the net cost of all components of the car and excluding the cost of sensitive technology, originates from a COC or is sourced from a SOE. After three years from the date of issuance of regulations, the percentage may not be more than 15 percent. 3 See the notice of proposed rulemaking  4 (NPRM) for detailed discussion on the background of the Act and other relevant laws.

The Act requires regulations to be issued to implement its mandate and for freight car manufacturers to certify that freight cars covered by the Act are in compliance. 5 FRA issued an NPRM on December 8, 2023, 6 proposing to codify a process for FRA to monitor and enforce compliance with the Act. This final rule adopts that proposal with minor clarifications. To carry out the Act's certification requirement, this rule requires railroad freight car manufacturers to electronically certify to FRA that each freight car complies with the Act before that car is operated on the U.S. general railroad system of transportation. The certification is required to identify each car being offered for operation and include the manufacturer's name and the name of the individual responsible for certifying compliance with the Act. In addition, this final rule requires manufacturers offering freight cars for service in the U.S. to maintain all records showing information to support certification, including content calculations, and such records are required to be made available to FRA upon request.

Fifteen comments to the NPRM were submitted to the docket for this rulemaking proceeding. 7 FRA reviewed all the comments, and in response, has incorporated portions of FRA's existing enforcement process into this final rule to clarify the process FRA will use to enforce the civil penalty fines provided in the Act. No other changes to the proposed rule text are provided in this final rule, but discussions are provided to help clarify: (1) the application of the Act's content limitation and sensitive technology prohibition requirements to freight car manufacturers; and (2) the implementation and enforcement of the Act's freight car compliance certification requirement and penalties.

This rule fulfills FRA's obligation to issue a rulemaking that implements the Act. In section “V. A. Executive Order 12866 as Amended by Executive Order 14094” of this rule, FRA describes the benefits and costs that are expected to come from issuing this regulation.

In the economic analysis section, FRA qualitatively explains the benefits expected to result from implementing the rule. Issuing the rule will protect the U.S. rail system from risks that come from manufacturing freight cars with sensitive technology and technological components, necessary to the functionality of the sensitive technology, from a COC or SOE such as potential vulnerabilities in information security. As such, this rule mitigates potential issues related to compromised national security and corporate espionage. Issuing the rule also fulfills FRA's duties required by the Act.

Over a 10-year period of analysis, FRA quantifies the following costs to the freight car manufacturing industry and FRA that come from issuing this rule: (1) limiting content sourced from COCs or SOEs; (2) prohibiting the use of sensitive technology from these sources; (3) industry compliance costs; and (4) government administrative monitoring and enforcement costs. As shown in Table 1, the cost from issuing the rule is approximately $143,600 (undiscounted), $130,300 (PV, 2%), $124,100 (PV, 3%), and $102,800 (PV, 7%). The annualized net costs are approximately $14,500 (PV, 2%) and $14,600 (PV, 3%). 8

FRA reviewed all fifteen comments received in response to the NPRM. Comments generally raised issues related to the proposed: (1) application of the Act's content limitation and sensitive technology prohibition requirements to freight car manufacturers; (2) implementation of the Act's freight car compliance certification; and (3) process for enforcing the Act's requirements and penalties. In response to the comments, this final rule incorporates portions of FRA's existing enforcement process into the FCSS  9 to help clarify the process FRA will use to enforce the civil penalties provided in the Act. Discussions are also provided in this section of this rulemaking to help clarify the other issues raised in the comments. In addition, other comments broadly expressed support  10 for the proposal or concern  11 about railroad safety, and although FRA considered these comments, FRA is not discussing those comments in this final rule because generally, they do not provide a basis for FRA to respond or are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Notably, FRA did not receive any comments in opposition to the proposals in the NPRM. For a complete list of comments please see the docket for this rulemaking. 12

The preamble to the NPRM provides FRA's understanding of how the Act applies to railroad freight car manufacturers. 13 It generally explains that the Act: (1) applies to manufacturers and not railroads and does not cover after-manufacture changes to railroad freight cars, including sensitive technology; (2) does not apply to railroad freight cars already placed in service in the U.S.; and (3) provides definitions for the terms ”sensitive technology”, COCs, and SOEs that are suitable for implementation of the Act.

As discussed in the NPRM, FRA concluded that the Act regulates railroad freight cars by imposing requirements at the time of initial manufacture but does not require FRA to ensure that the requirements are met throughout the useful life of the equipment or at each re-entry into service following any changes to the railroad freight car including, repair, alteration, modification, rebuild, refurbishment, restoration, or reconstruction. 14 Several manufacturers, trade associations, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), and Rail Security Alliance (RSA)  15 commented that the Act's sensitive technology prohibition should be extended beyond the time of initial manufacture to further protect against the potential influence from COCs and SOEs. The commenters agree with FRA's conclusion that the Act imposes requirements only at a car's time of initial manufacture, but they contend that extending the prohibition would be within the spirit of the Act. These comments generally expressed concern that aftermarket parts containing sensitive technology originating from SOEs and COCs could be controlled remotely and could be used to disrupt railroad operation. Trinity Industries and the Association of American Railroads commented agreeing with the proposed rule's conclusion that the Act's sensitive technology prohibition applies only at the time of initial manufacture and do not request any extension to aftermarket parts. As discussed in the NPRM, the Act expressly places requirements on the sensitive technologies installed on railroad freight car manufacturers at the time of the cars' initial manufacture and does not place on-going restrictions on the use of such technology ( e.g., aftermarket parts) on freight cars. 16 Without express Congressional intent to impose such ongoing restrictions, FRA is not extending the sensitive technology prohibitions to apply to freight cars after their time of initial manufacture.

One member of the public  17 commented that the Act's requirements should not apply to existing freight cars. As discussed in the NPRM, railroad freight cars that are currently in-use are not subject to the Act, including when parts are replaced during maintenance or repair; because the Act only imposes requirements on newly-manufactured freight cars. 18 With respect to applicability, the plain language states that only railroad freight cars that are wholly manufactured on or after a date that is one year after the issuance date are subject to Act's requirements. 19 The Act requires FRA to issue regulations to implement the requirements set forth in the Act. For purpose of this analysis, FRA proposed to define the date on which FRA promulgates regulations as the “issuance date.” Thus, if FRA promulgates regulations on June 1, 2025, only railroad freight cars that are wholly manufactured on or after June 1, 2026, are subject to the Act's requirements. Using this hypothetical issuance date of June 1, 2025, as an example, railroad freight cars manufactured prior to June 1, 2026, and new railroad freight cars that were partially manufactured prior to June 1, 2026, are not subject to the Act.

Several manufacturers, trade associations, BLET, and RSA  20 commented that FRA should revise the proposed definition for “sensitive technology” to expressly include only devices and components that are physically located on the freight car. As such, devices in such locations would be prohibited, if originating from a COC or sourced from a SOE. 21 FRA disagrees that the revision is needed and in this final rule adopts the proposed rule's definition, incorporating the Act's definition for the term “sensitive technology.” The NPRM adopted the definition of the term “sensitive technology” directly from the Act. The Act defines sensitive technology as “any device embedded with electronics, software, sensors, or other connectivity, that enables the device to connect to, collect data from, or exchange data with another device.” FRA finds this definition suitable for implementing the Act's requirement. When read alone, FRA agrees with the commenters that the definition does not clearly restrict sensitive technology to devices located on freight cars. However, the Act's prohibition of certain sensitive technology expressly identifies “sensitive technology located on the railroad freight car” and proposed § 215.401(a)(2), adopted in this final rule, makes clear that the prohibition applies to sensitive technology “on the railroad freight car.” As such, FRA finds that its conclusion (discussed in the NPRM  22 ) that the Act's definition of “sensitive technology” is limited to devices located on freight cars is correct and as such, FRA does not find it necessary to revise the definition of “sensitive technology.”

Several manufacturers, trade associations, BLET, and RSA  23 commented that FRA should revise the final rule to further clarify the term “sensitive technology” by expressly including microprocessors, short range wireless processors, and long-range wireless processors to ensure these devices (or components) would be prohibited, if originating from a COC or sourced from a SOE. The NPRM adopted the definition of the term “sensitive technology” directly from the Act and, in the preamble to the NPRM, FRA explained that as proposed, the sensitive technology prohibition would also apply to the components necessary to the functionality of the sensitive technology ( i.e., the active components that work with the sensitive technology). 24 Further, in the NPRM, FRA specifically listed “ any type of processor, transmitter, receiver, or data storage device” as active components of sensitive technology. 25 As such, FRA finds that it is clear that various processors identified by the commenters are covered by the prohibition as proposed. The comments did not explain why such processors would not be covered by the proposed definition. Thus, FRA concludes it is not necessary to explicitly call out these types of active components in the definition of the term “sensitive technology,” and adopts the proposed definition.

Amsted Rail's comment suggests that FRA “adopt a de minimis limitation of 3%-5% of total material cost only on the finished railcar as a clear definition of small parts” to interpret the term “component,” as used in the Act. FRA declines to adopt a de minimis limitation, as it could be inconsistent with the definition provided by the Act. According to the Act, the term “component” means a part or subassembly of a railroad freight car. 26 The de minimis limitation suggested by Amsted Rail does not exclude parts or subassemblies from being included in the calculation. As such, part or subassembly of a finished car could be calculated in the 3%-5% of total material cost. In such a scenario, excluding the part or subassembly from the definition of “component” would be inconsistent with the express definition provided by the Act. Amsted Rail's comment did not address whether it would be possible to avoid any such inconsistencies.

A member of the public  27 commented that FRA should consult and coordinate with other relevant agencies and stakeholders to better refine and harmonize the proposed definitions for COC and SOE. The comment, however, does not express any concern with the proposed definitions, which are incorporated from the Act. FRA finds that the definitions are suitable for implementing the Act, and in this final rule, FRA adopts the definitions as proposed.

Wabtec Corporation and RSA commented on FRA's proposal for enforcing the Act's prohibition against railroad freight cars operating on the U.S. general railroad system of transportation if equipped with content originating from a COC or sourced from an SOE that has violated or infringed U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights. 28 The commenters: (1) request that this final rule clarify that any railroad freight cars equipped with IP subject to a violation or infringement that is not from a COC or SOE do not trigger the Act's IP violation or infringement prohibition; and (2) disagree with FRA's proposal that the duration of the IP violation or infringement prohibition is always permanent.

FRA agrees with the commenters that the IP violation or infringement prohibition applies only when the IP subject to the violation or infringement comes from a COC or SOE. The following example, provided in the NPRM, helps clarify this point. In 2009, the ITC issued a 10-year Limited Exclusion Order against two Chinese companies (Tianrui Group Company Limited and Tianrui Group Foundry Company Limited) and two U.S. companies (Standard Car Truck Company, Inc. and Barber Tianrui Railway Supply, LLC). 29 The ITC determined that the four respondents violated section 337 of the Tariff Act by misappropriating numerous Amsted trade secrets relating to the manufacture of cast steel railway wheels, importing into the U.S. cast steel railway wheels and substantially injuring, and threatening substantial injury to, Amsted's domestic cast steel railway wheel operations, which manufacture Amsted's Griffin® wheels. 30 The ITC determination excluded any such steel railway wheels from entering into the U.S. for ten years. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the ITC's decision. 31 FRA understands that section 20171(b)(1)(C)  32 would prohibit a railroad freight car from operating on the U.S. general railroad system of transportation if equipped with the steel wheels that were the subject of this case, only if they are from a COC or SOE. Therefore, a railroad freight car equipped with the steel wheels sourced from the either of the two U.S. companies (not SOEs) in this example, are not covered by the Act's IP violation or infringement prohibition.

As discussed in the NPRM, FRA understands the plain language of the Act to permit permanent prohibition, because it does not expressly limit the duration of the IP violation or infringement prohibition or connect it to any penalty provided in a determination by the ITC, or other court or agency of competent jurisdiction and legal authority. 33 The commenters disagree, asserting that “to the extent that the IP rights that were the subject of the violation have since lost their protected status other than through violation of law ( e.g., where such IP was protected by a patent that has expired or where a trade secret is no longer protected as such for example due to intentional disclosure), . . . the prohibition would no longer apply.” However, the scope of the application of the Act's IP violation or infringement prohibition is not limited to a particular owner, operator, or IP (likely a component on the railroad freight car), it is tied to the railroad freight car. The Act provides that the entire railroad freight car “may only operate on the United States general railroad system of transportation if . . . none of the content of the railroad freight car . . .” satisfies the prohibition. 34 When the prohibition is triggered, it applies to the entire railroad freight car that is so equipped, until it is brought into compliance ( e.g. removing the component that is subject to an IP violation or infringement). As such, the IP violation or infringement prohibition would be permanent, if the railroad freight car is not brought into compliance.

The Act requires manufacturers to annually certify to FRA, as delegated by the Secretary, that any railroad freight cars it offers for operation on the U.S. general railroad system of transportation meet the requirements of the Act. 35 This rulemaking incorporates the certification requirement into the FCSS  36 and establishes a process for FRA to access necessary information to determine compliance with the Act.

As proposed in the NPRM, this final rule requires manufacturers' certifications to be submitted electronically to FRA's Office of Railroad Safety. 37 The certifications must include the manufacturer's name and address; the name, signature, and contact information for the person responsible for certifying compliance; and a car identification number for each car being certified. Manufacturers will be required to maintain records to support their compliance, and FRA must be able to access those records upon request.

Two manufacturers, 38 RSA, and RSI commented that FRA should impose a five-year limit to the recordkeeping requirement. FRA disagrees, because records may be needed to enforce the Act beyond a five-year period. The statute of limitations is five years for noncompliance with the Act, but as explained in section III. C. 4. “Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to the Act” below, the prohibition penalty may be initiated after more than three monetary penalty assessments under the Act. Each of the three penalties could take multiple years using the process provided in §§ 215.409 through 215.421, and the penalty assessments may occur years apart. As such, the enforcement process would likely extend well beyond five years, and FRA may need access to records beyond a five-year period to enforce the regulation.

Wabtec Corporation, RSA, and RSI commented that FRA should provide a standard certification form for manufacturers to certify compliance. FRA disagrees and adopts the certification requirements as proposed in the NPRM. These requirements provide FRA the information needed to implement the certification requirements and allow manufacturers flexibility to determine how best to comply. The information required in § 215.403 can be conveniently and adequately provided in different formats. If desired, the industry may expand upon the minimum certification requirements and create an industry-wide certification form.

Two manufacturers, 39 RSA, and RSI informed FRA in their comments that it may not be convenient to certify compliance with the Act when they request FRA perform a sample car inspection. FRA understands that a sample car inspection is conducted when the sample railcar is fully built for inspection. 40 As such, it should be a convenient time to certify compliance. However, FRA expects manufacturers will develop their own process to ensure they comply with the certification requirements, including timely submissions to FRA.

Some manufacturers, 41 RSA, and RSI commented that FRA should revise the proposed rule  42 to clarify or add the following: (1) willful noncompliance should be required to establish a violation of the Act's requirements; (2) FRA's Chief Counsel should provide written notice of a probable violation, and an express process should be established for manufacturers facing prohibition through which manufacturers can defend their position and appeal a finding of noncompliance; (3) a process by which manufacturers can be reinstated after the prohibition is triggered; and (4) clarification of the five-year statute of limitations for enforcing identified violations. Generally, FRA expects violations of the Act to be rare; thus, FRA expects to address individual violations on a case-by-case basis. FRA agrees with the comments that an express process is warranted due to the severity of the potential penalties (the prohibition against offering cars for service in the U.S.) imposed by the Act. As discussed in the NPRM, FRA will use its Railroad Safety Enforcement Procedures (RSEP) (49 CFR part 209) to enforce the Act. 43 This final rule incorporates the RSEP into the FCSS to clarify how the RSEP will apply. 44

In addition, Association of American Railroads (AAR) expressed its understanding that FRA's proposal to request documentation to determine whether a freight car is registered with the Umler system would be limited to information relevant to determining such registration. As discussed in the NPRM, FRA plans to request information to enforce the requirements of the Act. In doing so, FRA intends to request information relevant to determine compliance with the Act and treat any protected or sensitive information appropriately.

Wabtec Corporation and RSA commented that FRA should assess the Act's prohibition penalty against freight car manufacturers only when there is willful noncompliance with the Act's requirements. The commenters assert that the Act's language, “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may [emphasis added] prohibit a railroad freight car manufacturer with respect to which the Secretary has assessed more than 3 violations under subparagraph (A) from providing additional railroad freight cars for operation on the United States general railroad system of transportation . . . ,” gives FRA some discretion to determine when to impose penalties. While FRA agrees the statutory language provides FRA discretion, FRA's RSEP provides the following criteria for FRA to use to determine which instances of noncompliance merit penalties: (1) the inherent seriousness of the condition or action; (2) the kind and degree of potential safety hazard the condition or action poses in light of the immediate factual situation; (3) any actual harm to persons or property already caused by the condition or action; (4) the offending person's ( i.e., railroad's or individual's) general level of current compliance as revealed by the inspection as a whole; (5) the person's recent history of compliance with the relevant set of regulations, especially at the specific location or division of the railroad involved; (6) whether a remedy other than a civil penalty (ranging from a warning on up to an emergency order) is more appropriate under all of the facts; and (7) such other factors as the immediate circumstances make relevant. The criteria provided by the RSEP are appropriate for FRA to enforce the Act's penalties tailored to the freight car manufacturer's relevant compliance record and the facts surrounding its noncompliance and promote rail safety. The commenters do not specifically address the RSEP criteria, but generally seem concerned with the severity of the penalties and seem to recommend a willfulness standard to safeguard against any potential shortcomings. FRA agrees with commenters that the Act's civil monetary penalties, potentially culminating in a prohibition on manufacturers from offering cars for service, are more severe than the typical civil penalties FRA assesses for violations of other Federal rail safety laws.

The RSEP explains FRA applies a willfulness standard for penalty assessments only when it is statutorily mandated. For example, FRA applies a willfulness standard for civil penalties assessed against individuals, 45 but does not require willfulness for suspensions or disqualifications of individuals. The willfulness standard for individual civil penalties described in the RSEP was statutorily mandated and created in response to an FRA proposal. 46 FRA proposed the willful act requirement for individuals because it “believed then that it would be too harsh a system to collect fines from individuals on a strict liability basis, as the safety statutes permit FRA to do with respect to railroads.”  47

In contrast to the individual civil penalty provisions, the provisions in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988 (RSIA) authorizing suspension or disqualification of an individual whose violation of Federal rail safety laws has shown that individual to be unfit for safety-sensitive service, do not require a showing of willfulness. 48 In the absence of a statutory requirement, FRA's implementing regulations for disqualification actions did not require a violation to be willful. 49

Criminal penalties are the only provisions identified by the RSEP, other than individual civil monetary penalties, that require willfulness for assessment. 50 This willfulness requirement also arose under statute. 51 Accordingly, it is not established FRA practice to interpret a willfulness requirement where the statute does not expressly require one. FRA has, however, broadly incorporated willfulness as a factor for determining the penalty amount when not statutorily required. FRA's civil penalty schedules for regulated entities generally provide higher penalties for willful violations than non-willful violations. In other words, FRA uses willfulness to assess a higher monetary penalty rather than as a threshold requirement for a finding of a violation. 52

For the forgoing reasons, FRA has found that willfulness is not required to support a violation of the Act's requirements. Without any evidence that Congress intended to apply a willfulness standard for the Act's requirements, per the RSEP, FRA will enforce the penalties using the same criteria as other civil monetary penalties assessed in FRA's safety program.

Three manufacturers, 53 RSA, and RSI commented that FRA should revise the proposed rule to add a specific process for manufacturers to defend against and appeal FRA's findings of noncompliance with the Act and a requirement for FRA's Chief Counsel to provide written notice of a probable violation of the Act. The RSEP  54 explains that when a violation is committed, “penalties are assessed by issuance of a penalty demand letter that summarizes the claims, encloses the violation report with a copy of all evidence on which FRA is relying in making its initial charge, and explains that the railroad may pay in full or submit, orally or in writing, information concerning any defenses or mitigating factors.” Consistent with the RSEP, FRA expects to issue a penalty demand letter, as described in the RSEP, for any violation of the Act prior to assessing any civil penalties.

The RSEP also provides a process for respondents to defend against a finding of noncompliance with the Act when FRA indicates its intent to enforce a civil penalty. Specifically, “[t]he railroad safety statutes, in conjunction with the Federal Claims Collection Act, authorize FRA to adjust or compromise the initial penalty claims based on a wide variety of mitigating factors.”  55 Once penalties have been proposed, the respondent is given a reasonable amount of time to investigate the charges and then make its case before FRA in an informal conference. 56

Two manufacturers and RSA commented that FRA should clarify the process for freight car manufacturers to provide cars for operation on the U.S. rail system after being prohibited from doing so due to noncompliance with the Act. 57 According to the Act, 58 the prohibition continues until FRA determines: (1) such manufacturer is in compliance with the Act; and (2) all civil penalties assessed to such manufacturer pursuant to this section have been paid in full. Remedial action may be considered mitigation during the civil penalty process, and evidence of completed remedial actions may help FRA determine compliance with the Act. FRA expects that during the course of any enforcement process, a manufacturer will submit evidence of appropriate corrective actions demonstrating that it has corrected the identified noncompliance and that it has come into full compliance with the Act and this regulation. Once FRA determines that a manufacturer has come into compliance and paid all relevant civil penalties, FRA will document that determination in writing.

To help further clarify the reinstatement process, this final rule is updating the term “section” in section 215.407(b)(1) to “subpart.” Section 20171(c)(4) states that a freight car manufacturer can resume providing cars for operation on the U.S. freight railroad interchange system when “[s]uch manufacturer is in compliance with this section.” The phrase, “this section,” refers to 49 U.S.C. 20171, which contains the Act's substantive requirements, including content limitations and certification. FRA's proposal, as indicated throughout the NPRM, intended to incorporate the statutory requirements into the regulation for the convenience of the regulated community without changing the substance. The proposed rule text incorporated the phrase, “this section,” from the Act into section 215.407(b)(1) without updating the reference to match the existing regulatory formatting and language. Within the existing regulatory formatting, the proper reference is to the “subpart,” referring to Subpart E—Manufacturing, which contains the same substantive requirements contained in 49 U.S.C. 20171. As such, FRA is changing the phrase “this section” to “this subpart” in the final rule's section 215.407(b)(1).

RSA and Wabtec Corporation commented that FRA should clarify how the statute of limitations will apply to findings of noncompliance with the Act. The statute of limitations is generally five years for penalties enforced by FRA, including civil monetary penalties and prohibitions (such as forfeiture of the right to provide freight cars for operation on the U.S. rail system). 59 As such, enforcement must commence within five years from the date when the claim first accrued. When FRA enforces civil monetary penalties for noncompliance with the Act, 60 the date the claim first accrues is the date that the noncompliance occurred. When FRA enforces prohibitions for noncompliance with the Act, 61 the date the claim first accrues is the date that more than three civil monetary penalties are assessed.

This section-by-section analysis is intended to explain the rationale for each revised or new provision FRA is incorporating into the FCSS. The regulatory changes are organized by section number.

As proposed in the NPRM, FRA is incorporating several new defined terms into the FCSS, most pulled directly from the Act and some added, as necessary, to effectively implement the Act. FRA is also organizing the existing FCSS definitions along with the new definitions in alphabetical order to conform with FRA's other regulations. No changes are being made to the existing FCSS definitions. As also explained in the NPRM, the Act's definition for the term “railroad freight car” mirrors the definition for the same term in the current FCSS and accordingly, in this final rule, FRA is adopting that definition as proposed.

The rule text for this section is unchanged from the NPRM. See the NPRM for more detailed section-by-section analysis. 62 For discussion of comments received about the definition for the terms “country of concern,” “sensitive technology,” and “state-owned enterprise” in this section, see section II. A. 3. of this final rule. Although FRA is adopting each definition as proposed in the NPRM, FRA is reiterating the discussion of each definition below for the convenience of the reader.

Component is defined by the Act, 63 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. Although the definition does not identify specific parts and subassemblies of freight cars as “components,” FRA believes Congress intends this definition to include the major components of freight cars ( e.g., trucks, wheel sets, center sills, draft gears, couplers, walkways, running boards) when calculating content limitations under 49 CFR 215.401(b)(1). FRA does not intend the definition of “component” to include smaller parts that do not significantly impact manufacturing costs ( e.g., wear plates, roof liners, or small pieces of hardware such as screws).

Control is defined by the Act, 64 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. This definition relates to the definitions of “qualified facility” and “qualified manufacturer” discussed below.

Cost of sensitive technology is defined by the Act, 65 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS.

Country of concern is defined by the Act  66 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. 67 As noted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Background section in the NPRM, a country must meet all three criteria to qualify as a “country of concern.” Each of the criteria within the definition of “country of concern” are separated by “and” instead of “or,” meaning a country must meet all three criteria to meet the definition. 68 This term is separate and distinct from the terms “foreign country of concern” used in the CHIPS Act and implementing regulations to identify a country that is “detrimental to the national security or foreign policy of the United States”  69 or “country of particular concern” used in religious freedom designations made by the U.S. Department of State. 70

First, to qualify as a “country of concern” under section 20171, the United States Department of Commerce (U.S. DOC) must have identified that country as a nonmarket economy country pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 at the date of enactment ( i.e., as of Nov. 15, 2021). 71 In 2021, when the Act became law, the U.S. DOC had named eleven countries as nonmarket economy countries: Republic of Armenia, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Belarus, People's Republic of China, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Republic of Uzbekistan, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam  72 Accordingly, the countries that meet this first prong of the definition will not change.

Second, to constitute a “country of concern,” the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) must also name that country on the priority watch list  73 in the most recent report required by the Trade Act of 1974. 74 In the most recently required report, the USTR identified seven countries on the priority watch list: Argentine Republic, Republic of Chile, People's Republic of China, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Russian Federation, and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 75

Third, a country is deemed a “country of concern” only if it is subject to monitoring by the USTR under section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974. 76 Currently, the People's Republic of China is the only country subject to monitoring pursuant to section 306.

Accordingly, the People's Republic of China is currently the only country that meets all three criteria and therefore is the only “country of concern” as defined in the Act.

Net cost is defined by the Act based on its definition in the USMCA or any subsequent free trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, 77 and FRA is adopting that definition in the FCSS. Currently, chapter 4 of the USMCA defines net cost. 78

Qualified facility is defined by the Act, 79 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. When read in combination with the definition of the term control the Act provides, FRA finds that the Act intends for general corporate law principles to apply to determine whether a particular railroad freight car or component manufacturer is owned or controlled an SOE. 80

Qualified manufacturer is defined by the Act, 81 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. For the purpose of this definition, a supplier, component and repair part manufacturer, or other entity may be a railroad freight car manufacturer, if it manufactures, assembles, of substantially transforms a freight car, as described in 49 CFR 215.401(a)(1). Like the definition of qualified facility, when read in combination with the Act's definition of the term control, FRA again finds that the Act intends for general corporate law principles to apply to determine whether a particular railroad freight car or component manufacturer is owned or controlled by an SOE. 82

Sensitive technology is defined by the Act, 83 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. While FRA understands the list of devices included in this definition to be examples that can be considered sensitive technology, FRA is not currently aware of any additional devices that should be included in the list.

State-owned enterprise means—

(a) an entity that is owned by, or under the control of, a national, provincial, or local government of a country of concern, or an agency of such government; or

(b) an individual acting under the direction or influence of a government or agency described in paragraph (a) of this definition. 84

This definition is provided by the Act and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS.

Substantially transformed is defined by the Act, 85 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS. FRA understands that a manufacturing process which changes an article's name, character, or use will often result in a change in the article's tariff classification. Accordingly, FRA understands the Act's definition of substantially transformed to mean a manufacturing process that changes an article's name, character, or use. FRA notes that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an implementing agency for USMCA and although CBP uses a slightly different definition of substantially transformed than that provided in the Act, CBP explains that substantial transformation “occurs when, as a result of manufacturing processes, a new and different article emerges, having a distinctive name, character, or use, which is different from that originally possessed by the article or material before being subject to the manufacturing process.”  86 FRA finds that the definition of substantially transformed provided in the Act and CBP's definition of the same term are compatible in that a manufacturing process which changes an article's name, character, or use will often also result in a change in the article's tariff classification.

USMCA is defined by the Act, 87 and FRA is adopting it in the FCSS.

This section incorporates the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 20171(b)(1) into the FCSS. Section 20171(b)(1) provides that for a railroad freight car to operate on the U.S. general railroad system of transportation: (1) any car wholly manufactured after a certain date must be manufactured, assembled, and substantially transformed by a qualified manufacturer in a qualified facility; (2) none of the sensitive technology located on the car may originate from a COC or be sourced from a SOE; and (3) none of the content of the car (except sensitive technology) may originate from a COC or be sourced from a SOE with a history of problematic trade practices or respect for IP rights. These concepts are discussed further below.

Paragraph (a)(1) of 49 CFR 215.401 mirrors paragraph (b)(1)(A) of section 20171 and mandates that any railroad freight car to be operated on the U.S. general railroad system of transportation and wholly constructed one year from a final rule in this proceeding, must be manufactured, assembled, and substantially transformed by a qualified manufacturer or a qualified facility. The rule text for this section is unchanged from the NPRM. See the NPRM for more detailed section-by-section analysis. 88 For discussion of comments received about this section, see section II. A. of this final rule.

Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. NMFS implemented the 2025 specifications in the 2023-2025 specifications for the Atlantic herring fishery (88 FR 17397; March 23, 2023). The specifications set an overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), and sub-ACLs for 2023-2025 for each of the four management areas in the herring fishery, subject to future review and any necessary adjustments. FMP regulations § 648.200(e) state that NMFS may make in-season adjustments to the herring specifications and sub-ACLs to achieve conservation and management objectives, after consulting with the New England Fishery Management Council, during the fishing year in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and consistent with FMP objectives and provisions.

Amendment 8 to the FMP (86 FR 1810; January 11, 2021) implemented an ABC control rule for the herring fishery. The ABC control rule is a formulaic approach for setting a harvest limit and is designed to balance the goals and objectives of the FMP, including managing the fishery at long-term sustainable levels and accounting for herring's role as forage in the ecosystem. The ABC control rule states that when biomass is at or above 50 percent of the biomass associated with maximum sustainable yield (B MSY ) or its proxy, ABC is the catch associated with a maximum fishing mortality (F) of 80 percent of F MSY or its proxy. When biomass falls below 50 percent of B MSY or its proxy, the allowable F declines linearly to zero at 10 percent of B MSY or its proxy.

On October 2, 2020, NMFS determined the Atlantic herring stock was overfished, but overfishing was not occurring. Framework 9 to the FMP (87 FR 42962; July 19, 2022) established a 5-year rebuilding plan for herring with an F consistent with the ABC control rule implemented in Amendment 8. The rebuilding plan was expected to rebuild the stock by 2026, however, the duration of the rebuilding period was extended from 5 years (2026) to 7 years (2028) with implementation of the 2023-2025 herring specifications.

A 2024 herring management track stock assessment (2024 stock assessment) was completed in June 2024. According to the results of the 2024 stock assessment, the stock continues to be overfished with overfishing not occurring. Retrospective pattern adjustments were necessary because the model overestimated biomass and underestimated mortality. The adjusted spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 26 percent (47,955 metric tons (mt)) of B MSY and the adjusted F was estimated to be 58 percent (0.263) of the overfishing threshold (F MSY equals 0.45). The 2024 stock assessment was unable to explain a cause for the stock's historic and continued low recruitment and projected that poor recruitment of herring will likely result in a substantial decline in biomass.

On July 31, 2024, the Council's Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the 2024 stock assessment and recommended harvest limits for 2025-2027. The SSC recommended using the ABC control rule for the OFL and ABC recommendations for 2025-2027, while noting concern for the continued low recruitment and low spawning stock biomass.

At its September 2024 meeting, the Council reviewed the 2024 stock assessment and recommended new specifications for 2025-2027. The Council's recommendations are consistent with the ABC control rule and the SSC's recommendations, with the following exception. Catch projections from the 2024 stock assessment allow for harvest limit increases in 2026 and 2027, compared to 2025. However, the Council recommended holding 2026 harvest limits constant for 2027, instead of allowing for projected limit increases. This precautionary measure is intended to lessen the risk of overfishing and support stock rebuilding, while recognizing that 2027 specifications will likely be revised following the 2025 herring research track stock assessment.

NMFS intends to implement the 2025-2027 specifications via proposed and final rulemaking as soon as possible, but the 2025-2027 specifications would not be effective in time for the start of the fishing year on January 1, 2025. Catch projections from the 2024 assessment indicate the need for an almost 90-percent reduction from the current 2025 ACL (23,961 mt) to the new, reduced 2025 ACL (2,710 mt). Implementing the reduced 2025 specifications after the start of the fishing year on January 1, 2025, raises a significant risk that catch may exceed the reduced catch limits. Therefore, to ensure the reduced 2025 specifications are in place at the start of the fishing year on January 1, the Council requested that NMFS use an in-season adjustment to reduce the current 2025 specifications and sub-ACLs as soon as possible, and NMFS concurs.

The FMP regulations at § 648.201(g) specify that unharvested catch in a herring management area in a fishing year (up to 10 percent of that area's sub-ACL) shall be carried over and added to the sub-ACL for that herring management area for the fishing year following the year when total catch is determined. Preliminary data suggest that 2023 catch levels were substantially lower than allowed in herring management areas 1B and 2. Thus, a percentage of catch underages from 2023 is eligible for carryover to 2025: approximately 54 mt from Area 1B and 346 mt from Area 2. Given the substantial catch reduction needed for 2025 to support the FMP's conservation and management objectives, the Council requested that NMFS use its in-season adjustment authority to nullify any carryover in 2025. NMFS agrees that nullifying any carryover is necessary to lessen the risk of overfishing and to help rebuild the stock. The potential long-term negative effects on the herring stock associated with an increased risk of overfishing and delayed rebuilding outweigh the short-term economic benefits associated with harvesting the available carryover.

Therefore, this interim final rule adjusts the 2025 specifications and sub-ACLs consistent with the FMP's goals to lessen the risk of overfishing and help rebuild the stock. The current and reduced 2025 specifications are shown in the table below.

This action reduces 2025 specifications and sub-ACLs consistent with the FMP's goals to lessen the risk of overfishing and help rebuild the stock. The complete 2025-2027 specifications would be implemented via proposed and final rulemaking as soon as possible following the in-season adjustment. The current and new, reduced 2025 specifications are shown in table 1 below.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the FMP prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679 and at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.

The final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (89 FR 15484, March 4, 2024) set the 2025 pollock TAC at 163,494 metric tons (mt) in the GOA. In December 2024, the Council recommended a 2025 pollock TAC of 186,245 mt for the GOA, which is greater than the 163,494 mt established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The Council's recommended 2025 TACs and the area and seasonal apportionments are based on the Science and Statistical Committee's (SSC's) overfishing limit (OFL) and allowable biological catch (ABC) recommendations. The SSC recommendations are informed by the Groundfish Plan Team's recommended OFLs and ABCs as well as a review of the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report dated November 2024.

The final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA set the 2025 Pacific cod TAC at 20,757 mt in the GOA. In December 2024, the Council recommended a 2025 Pacific cod TAC of 23,670 mt for the GOA, which is greater than the 20,757 mt established by the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA. The Council's recommended 2025 TACs and the area and seasonal apportionments are based on the SSC's OFL and ABC recommendations. The SSC recommendations are informed by the Groundfish Plan Team's recommended OFLs and ABCs as well as a review of the SAFE report dated November 2024.

Steller sea lions occur in the same location as the pollock and Pacific cod fisheries and are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Pollock and Pacific cod are principal prey species for Steller sea lions in the GOA. The seasonal apportionment of pollock and Pacific cod harvests are necessary to ensure the groundfish fisheries are not likely to cause jeopardy of extinction or adverse modification of critical habitat for Steller sea lions. The regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv) specify how the pollock TAC will be apportioned and the regulations at § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and (a)(12)(i) specify how the Pacific cod TAC will be apportioned.

In accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2)(i)(B), and (a)(2)(iv) the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that, based on the best scientific information available for this fishery, the current GOA pollock and Pacific cod TACs are incorrectly specified, as they are not using the most recent data available. Consequently, pursuant to § 679.25(a) the Regional Administrator is adjusting the 2025 GOA pollock TAC to 186,245 mt and the 2025 Pacific cod TAC to 23,670 mt. Therefore, tables 4 and 6 of the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA are revised consistent with this adjustment.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5)(iv), table 4 of the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA is revised for the 2025 TACs of pollock in the Central and Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

Pursuant to § 679.20(a)(6)(ii) and (a)(12)(i), table 6 of the final 2024 and 2025 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA is revised for the 2025 TACs of Pacific cod in the GOA.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would allow for harvests that exceed the appropriate allocation for pollock and Pacific cod based on the best scientific information available. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 13, 2024.