The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. ) (CPIA), which implements the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (823 U.N.T.S. 231 (1972)) (the Convention), allows for the conclusion of an agreement between the United States and another party to the Convention to impose import restrictions on eligible archaeological and ethnological material. Under the CPIA and the applicable U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations, found in § 12.104 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 12.104), the restrictions are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which an agreement enters into force with respect to the United States (19 U.S.C. 2602(b)). This period may be extended for additional periods, each extension not to exceed five years, if it is determined that the factors justifying the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists (19 U.S.C. 2602(e); 19 CFR 12.104g(a)).

On May 22, 2019, the United States and the Republic of Ecuador (Ecuador) signed the “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Ecuador Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Ecuador” (the MOU). Following the exchange of diplomatic notes, the MOU entered into force on February 11, 2020. On February 14, 2020, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 20-03) in the Federal Register (85 FR 8389), 1 which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to impose import restrictions on categories of archaeological and ethnological material. The designated list identified archaeological material dating from the Pre-ceramic period and into the Colonial period (approximately 12,000 B.C. to A.D. 1769), and ethnological material, including Colonial period ecclesiastical material, and Colonial period secular paintings, documents, and manuscripts, dating from A.D. 1532 to 1822.

On April 24, 2024, the United States Department of State proposed in the Federal Register (89 FR 31245) to extend the MOU. On December 2, 2024, after considering the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, made the necessary determinations to extend the MOU for an additional five years. Following an exchange of diplomatic notes, concluded on January 16, 2025, the United States and Ecuador have agreed to extend the MOU for an additional five-year period, through January 16, 2030. However, in the absence of a final rule extending enforcement of the restrictions, enforcement of these restrictions ended on February 11, 2025. Enforcement of the extension will begin upon publication of this document in the Federal Register .

Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension and reinstate enforcement of these restrictions. The restrictions on the importation of archaeological and ethnological material from Ecuador will continue in effect through January 16, 2030. Importation of such material from Ecuador continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met. Additionally, CBP is clarifying the dates applicable to ethnological material of Ecuador, consistent with the designated list published in CBP Dec. 20-03. As such, CBP is revising the description language in the cultural property column found in 19 CFR 12.104g(a).

The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address: https://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property/current-agreements-and-import-restrictions by selecting the material for “Ecuador.”

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

In accordance with Treasury Order 100-20, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority related to the customs revenue functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury as set forth in 6 U.S.C. 212 and 215, subject to certain exceptions. This regulation is being issued in accordance with DHS Directive 07010.3, Revision 03.2, which delegates to the Commissioner of CBP the authority to prescribe and approve regulations related to cultural property import restrictions.

Pete Flores, Acting Commissioner, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to the Director (or Acting Director, if applicable) of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division of CBP, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

On January 1, 2021, Congress enacted into law the CTA as part of the broader Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. 1 Section 6403 of the CTA, among other things, amends the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) by adding a new section 5336, Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements, to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code. This section established new BOI reporting requirements for many corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities operating in the United States. The CTA excludes from that general definition, however, specified categories of businesses. The CTA also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to exempt any other “entity or class of entities” for which the Secretary, with the written concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, has, by regulation, determined that “requiring beneficial ownership information from the entity or class of entities . . . would not serve the public interest” and “would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes.”  2 In addition, section 5318(a)(7) of the BSA provides that the Secretary may make appropriate exemptions from a requirement in the BSA or regulations prescribed under the BSA. 3 Taken together, these provisions authorize the issuance of regulations that may provide additional exemptions from the requirements of the CTA.

The CTA requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations to implement the CTA's reporting requirements. For most reporting companies, the CTA authorized the Secretary to allow up to two years from the regulation's effective date for reporting companies to file their initial BOI reports. The Secretary has delegated these and other CTA-implementing responsibilities to FinCEN, a bureau of the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). 4

On September 30, 2022, FinCEN published the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements final rule (Reporting Rule), implementing the CTA's reporting requirements (31 U.S.C. 5336(b)). The Reporting Rule became effective on January 1, 2024, and is codified in FinCEN's regulations at 31 CFR 1010.380. 5 Section 1010.380 requires certain corporations, limited liability companies, and other similar entities (reporting companies)  6 to report certain identifying information about the reporting companies themselves, the beneficial owners who own or control them, and, for companies created on or after January 1, 2024, the company applicants who form or register them. 7

Section 1010.380 previously required domestic reporting companies and foreign reporting companies  8 created or registered to do business in the United States before the rule's effective date of January 1, 2024, to file initial BOI reports with FinCEN by January 1, 2025, one year after the effective date of the regulations. 9 Domestic reporting companies created in 2024 and those foreign reporting companies registered to do business in the United States in 2024 had 90 days to file their initial BOI reports with FinCEN. 10 Starting on January 1, 2025, section 1010.380 provided all reporting companies created or registered on or after that date with 30 days to file their initial reports.

The January 1, 2025, deadline previously established in FinCEN's regulations has changed in light of litigation challenging the CTA. In two cases, district courts issued universal orders that preliminarily enjoined FinCEN from implementing and enforcing the CTA and the Reporting Rule or stayed the effective date of section 1010.380 on a nationwide basis. 11 First, on December 3, 2024, in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Bondi, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order that preliminarily enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA and stayed its implementing regulation's reporting deadlines. 12 The government appealed and separately sought a stay of the district court's order pending that appeal, and on January 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal of that order. 13 Second, on January 7, 2025, in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, issued a similar preliminary order that prevented the government from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs and stayed the effective date of the implementing regulation during the pendency of that litigation. 14 The government appealed and sought a stay of this order, which the district court granted on February 18, 2025. The district court's stay of its order lifted the last remaining nationwide order preventing FinCEN from implementing and enforcing the CTA and section 1010.380.

Recognizing that the reporting deadlines set by section 1010.380 for many companies had already passed while those deadlines were stayed by court order and that companies would need additional time to comply, FinCEN extended the reporting deadlines for most reporting companies until March 21, 2025. 15 In addition, FinCEN announced that during the 30-day extension period, it would “assess its options to further modify deadlines, while prioritizing reporting for those entities that pose the most significant national security risks.”  16 On March 2, 2025, Treasury announced the suspension of enforcement of the CTA against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and Treasury further announced its intent to engage in a rulemaking to narrow the Reporting Rule to foreign reporting companies only. 17

FinCEN is exercising the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv) to exempt domestic reporting companies from the Reporting Rule and the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7) to exempt foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of the foreign reporting company, as well as to exempt U.S. persons from having to provide such information to the foreign reporting companies for which they are a beneficial owner. Related to the second exemption, FinCEN is also exercising the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7) to revise the special rule associated with foreign pooled investment vehicles to exempt such entities from having to report the BOI of U.S. persons who exercise substantial control over the entity.

First, this interim final rule exempts all domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, from the requirement to file initial BOI reports, or to update or correct previously filed BOI reports, by excluding domestic companies from the scope of the term “reporting company,” pursuant to a determination made by the Secretary under 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv). The rule text provides for this change by redefining the term “reporting company” at 31 CFR 1010.380(c) to remove the previously defined term “domestic reporting company” at 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(1)(i). By taking this step, any entity that meets the definition of the previously defined term “domestic reporting company” is no longer within the scope of the Reporting Rule. Moreover, FinCEN is adding an exemption to the list of exempted entities at 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2). This exemption is applies to “any entity that is: (A) a corporation, limited liability company, or other entity; and (B) created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a State or Indian tribe.”

Second, this interim final rule exempts foreign reporting companies, and their U.S. person beneficial owners, from the requirement to provide the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of the foreign reporting company. The rule text provides for this change by adding an exemption at 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(i): “Reporting companies are exempt from the requirement in 31 U.S.C. 5336 and this section to report the beneficial ownership information of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners.” It also adds an exemption at 31 CFR 1010.380(d)(4)(ii): “U.S. persons are exempt from the requirements in 31 U.S.C. 5336 and this section to provide beneficial ownership information with respect to any reporting company for which they are a beneficial owner.” Foreign reporting companies that only have beneficial owners that are U.S. persons will be exempt from the requirement to report any beneficial owners.

Related to the second exemption, this interim final rule revises the special rule associated with foreign pooled investment vehicles at 31 CFR 1010.380(a)(b)(2)(iii) to exempt foreign pooled investment vehicles from having to report the BOI of U.S. persons who exercise substantial control over the entity. Under the special rule, foreign pooled investment vehicles that would be a reporting company but for the exemption at 31 CFR 1010.380(c)(2)(xviii), and are formed under the laws of a foreign country, are required to report beneficial ownership information solely with respect to an individual who exercises substantial control over the entity. If more than one individual exercises substantial control over the entity, the entity is required to report information with respect to the individual who has the greatest authority over the strategic management of the entity. FinCEN has revised the rule text such that foreign pooled investment vehicles must report the BOI of an individual who exercises substantial control over the entity if that individual is not a U.S. person. If more than one individual exercises substantial control over the entity and at least one of those individuals is not a U.S. person, the entity must report information with respect to the individual who is not a U.S. person who has the greatest authority over the strategic management of the entity. If there is no individual with substantial control who is not a U.S. person, the foreign pooled investment vehicle is not required to report any beneficial owners.

This interim final rule otherwise retains the requirement for foreign reporting companies, and their beneficial owners (excluding U.S. persons), to report their BOI to FinCEN, while extending the deadline for those companies to file initial BOI reports, or update or correct previously filed BOI reports, to 30 days after the date of this publication or 30 days after their registration to do business in the United States, whichever comes later.

FinCEN is accepting comments on this interim final rule. FinCEN will assess the exemptions, as appropriate, in light of those comments and intends to issue a final rule this year.

The CTA recognizes that BOI reporting requirements impose burdens on businesses. The CTA therefore directs the Secretary to “minimize burdens on reporting companies associated with the collection of the information . . . in light of the private compliance costs placed on legitimate businesses.”  18 The CTA also authorizes the Secretary to exempt from the reporting requirements “any entity or class of entities” if the Secretary, with the written concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines that “requiring beneficial ownership information from the entity or class of entities . . . would not serve the public interest” and “would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes.”  19

In issuing the Reporting Rule, FinCEN estimated the burdens imposed on businesses. FinCEN estimated the total aggregate labor costs for reporting companies filing initial BOI reports in the first year of the Reporting Rule to be $21.7 billion and for reporting companies filing initial BOI in future years to be $3.3 billion annually. 20 FinCEN estimated the total aggregate labor costs for reporting companies filing updated BOI reports in the first year to be $1.0 billion and in future years to be $2.3 billion. 21 Estimates for the five-year average cost were $6.9 billion for initial reports and $2.0 billion for updated reports. 22 FinCEN also noted that many comments stated that “the proposed reporting requirements are excessively onerous” and “focused on how the proposed reporting requirements might negatively affect small businesses.”  23 FinCEN further noted that multiple comments stated that “costs to comply with the proposed reporting requirements would hurt small businesses during financially difficult times.”  24 While explaining that it “is sensitive to concerns from small businesses about having to comply with a new set of regulations, and has endeavored to minimize unnecessary compliance burdens,” FinCEN recognized that achieving the CTA's goal of collecting information that is “highly useful” while “minimiz[ing] burden on reporting companies” requires a “delicate balance.”  25

On January 20, 2025, there was a change in presidential administrations, which has resulted in a reassessment of the balance struck by the Reporting Rule. On January 31, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, which announced an Administration policy “to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen” and “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” Consistent with the exemptive authority provided in the CTA and the direction of the President, the Secretary has reassessed the balance between the usefulness of collecting BOI and the regulatory burdens imposed by the scope of the Reporting Rule.

The Secretary, with the written concurrence of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, has determined for purposes of this interim final rule that the reporting of BOI by domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners “would not serve the public interest” and “would not be highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts to detect, prevent, or prosecute money laundering, the financing of terrorism, proliferation finance, serious tax fraud, or other crimes.” The Secretary is aware that most domestic reporting companies that are not already covered by a statutory exemption are small businesses and that any regulations affecting them must recognize this fact. As the preamble to the Reporting Rule states, “[s]mall businesses are a backbone of the U.S. economy, accounting for a large share of U.S. economic activity, and driving U.S. innovation and competition.” The vast majority of domestic small businesses are legitimate and owned by hard-working American taxpayers who are not engaged in illicit activity. The Secretary has assessed that exempting them would ensure that the Reporting Rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest, considering the burdens imposed by the regulations without sufficient benefits. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security have concurred that collecting BOI from domestic reporting companies would not be “highly useful in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agency efforts.” The Secretary's determination is also consistent with the direction of the President, including as set forth in E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.

In conducting this reassessment, the Secretary has considered that failure to require BOI reporting by domestic reporting companies could result in illicit finance risks, as Treasury has acknowledged. For example, the preamble to the Reporting Rule noted that Treasury's 2022 National Money Laundering Risk Assessments identified lack of timely access to BOI as a key weakness within the U.S. anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulatory regime. 26 The preamble to the Reporting Rule also noted that while FinCEN's 2016 customer due diligence rule increased transparency by requiring covered financial institutions to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of an account opening, 27 it did not address the collection of BOI at the time of a legal entity's creation, and BOI collected at the time of a legal entity's creation provides additional insight into the original beneficial owners of the entity. 28 The Secretary has taken illicit finance risks into account in considering the usefulness of collecting BOI, the burdens such collection imposes on the public, and the public interest. Additionally, the Secretary has considered alternative sources of information to mitigate risks. For example, the continuing requirement for covered financial institutions to collect a legal entity customer's BOI at the time of account opening will serve to mitigate certain illicit finance risks associated with exempting domestic reporting companies from reporting their BOI.

Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv), and after conferring with the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security and receiving written concurrences from the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary has directed FinCEN to issue this interim final rule exempting domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners from the reporting requirements imposed through the Reporting Rule. The Secretary has also directed FinCEN to solicit comments on the approach taken in this interim final rule; the Secretary and FinCEN will assess this exemption, as appropriate, in light of those comments, and FinCEN intends to issue a final rule this year.

Foreign reporting companies, however, present heightened national security and illicit finance risks and different concerns about regulatory burdens. Congress, through certain provisions in the CTA, recognized these heightened concerns about national security and illicit finance risks posed by foreign ownership or foreign control of reporting companies. Congress thus limited certain CTA exemptions to companies that are exclusively domestic. For example, the CTA requires that an entity be a “United States person” and be “beneficially owned or controlled exclusively by 1 or more United States persons that are United States citizens or lawfully admitted for permanent residence” to qualify for the BOI reporting exemption for entities assisting a tax-exempt entity, 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xx). In addition, the CTA states that the inactive entity reporting exemption, 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiii), is available only if an entity is not “owned by a foreign person, whether directly or indirectly, wholly or partially.” These exemptions reflect Congress's intent to establish narrow, zero-threshold bars for foreign-owned or foreign-controlled entities, given heightened risks posed by companies with foreign ownership or control.

Throughout the rulemaking process implementing the CTA's reporting requirements, FinCEN has emphasized the risks of foreign illicit actors accessing the U.S. financial system through the use of legal entities created in foreign jurisdictions but registered to do business in the United States. For example, FinCEN noted that “[c]orrupt foreign officials, sanctions evaders, and narco-traffickers, among others, exploit the current gap in the U.S. BOI reporting regime to park their ill-gotten gains in a stable jurisdiction, thereby exposing the United States to serious national security threats.”  29 FinCEN highlighted specific examples of significant criminal investigations into the use of shell companies throughout the world to launder money or evade sanctions imposed by the United States, including sanctions evasion by Iran through shell companies abroad.

Furthermore, on February 4, 2025, President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) addressing Iranian “behavior [that] threatens the national interest of the United States.”  30 This NSPM directs the Secretary to:

Requiring BOI reporting by foreign reporting companies is consistent with the actions regarding beneficial ownership that this NSPM directs the Secretary to take to address the national security threat arising from Iran.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF)  32 Report on the Concealment of Beneficial Ownership has also found that shell companies can be used in complex structures involving the distribution of assets across multiple companies in multiple jurisdictions. When these structures are used for illicit purposes, money may flow through multiple layers of shell companies before finally being withdrawn in cash or transferred to its final destination internationally. Of the cases analyzed by FATF that included shell companies, the majority included a corporation located in a foreign jurisdiction. 33 Foreign companies registered to do business in the United States therefore pose a heightened risk to U.S. national security.

At the same time, foreign companies present fewer concerns regarding regulatory burdens that would not serve the public interest. Foreign companies are subject to the Reporting Rule only if they register to do business in the United States, thereby already filing a document in the United States. Moreover, E.O. 14192 announces a policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” The policy direction to minimize regulatory burdens placed on the American people can be achieved by exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of the foreign reporting company.

Consistent with the CTA's stated purposes, the CTA's exclusion of foreign reporting companies from certain other exemptions, the risks identified above, and the relative burdens, the Secretary has determined that exempting foreign companies would not serve the public interest. FinCEN is therefore continuing to require foreign reporting companies to report their BOI, except with respect to U.S. person beneficial owners. Foreign reporting companies that only have beneficial owners that are U.S. persons will be exempt from the requirement to report any beneficial owners.

The Secretary has determined for purposes of this interim final rule that it would be appropriate to exempt U.S. persons from having to provide BOI and, accordingly, to exempt foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of a foreign reporting company. The Secretary has assessed that exempting U.S. persons' BOI would ensure that the Reporting Rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest, considering the burdens imposed by the regulations without sufficient benefits. The Secretary's determination is also consistent with the direction of the President, including as set forth in E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. In making this determination, the Secretary has considered that exempting reporting companies from reporting U.S. persons' BOI could result in risks of evasion or illicit finance risks.

Consistent with 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7), the Secretary has therefore directed FinCEN to issue this interim final rule exempting foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of a foreign reporting company. The Secretary has also directed FinCEN to solicit comments on the approach taken in this interim final rule; the Secretary and FinCEN will assess this exemption, as appropriate, in light of those comments, and FinCEN intends to issue a final rule this year. In addition, FinCEN has decided to provide foreign companies with an additional 30 days to comply with the reporting requirements, recognizing that the reporting deadlines had been stayed by court order and were then extended by FinCEN, and that foreign companies will need advance notice of the new deadline.

FinCEN has determined that an interim final rule is the appropriate mechanism to exempt domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies from the BOI reporting requirements pending the receipt of comments and issuance of a final rule. This approach accommodates both the Secretary's direction and principles of public participation in regulatory action.

First, FinCEN finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required, the need to expeditiously exempt domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies satisfies the “good cause” exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Reporting companies and their beneficial owners were, under existing regulations, required to comply with the BOI reporting requirements by January 1, 2025. Now, in response to developments in ongoing litigation, they currently face a March 21, 2025, deadline to comply with BOI reporting requirements. The purpose of this rule is to exempt domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies from those requirements. Although public comment will be solicited and a final rule will be issued this year, soliciting public comment before providing the exemptions would be impractical, as FinCEN could not—and would not have been able to—provide notice, solicit public comments, and review those comments before the March 21, 2025, deadline. Providing prior public notice would therefore subject domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies to compliance costs during the pendency of this rulemaking that could ultimately prove unnecessary when the rule is finalized, which would frustrate the purpose of this rule.

However, this rulemaking still accommodates the principles of public participation because the Secretary and FinCEN intend to review the public comments, assess the exemptions, as appropriate, in light of those comments, and issue a final rule this year, within the existing statutory period that the CTA affords for FinCEN to set reporting deadlines. The CTA provides FinCEN discretion to extend the BOI reporting deadlines for most reporting companies until two years after the January 1, 2024, effective date of the Reporting Rule—as far out as January 1, 2026. 34 The exemption for domestic reporting companies provided in this interim final rule therefore serves to suspend any reporting requirements within this statutorily authorized period while the rule is finalized during that period. This suspension must be effective immediately to prevent companies from being required to report before a final rule is issued.

In addition, FinCEN finds that prior notice and public comment are unnecessary because this interim final rule does not impose new burdens, but rather exempts domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies from reporting requirements.

Finally, FinCEN finds that proceeding through an interim final rule will most appropriately address the public confusion about the Reporting Rule's deadlines that has arisen because the Reporting Rule's deadlines had been stayed by court order when they originally passed. FinCEN thus determines that the most appropriate mechanism to provide for the exemptions just discussed pending issuance of a final rule in light of the pressing deadline, to avoid imposing immediate compliance costs on domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons in contradiction to the rule's purpose, and to minimize and expeditiously resolve this period of confusion, while still allowing for public participation, is this interim final rule providing for 60 days for public comment thereafter.

FinCEN invites interested parties to submit comments on the issues raised in this interim final rule within 60 days of its publication to the extent that public comment is needed to inform whether domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies should be exempted from the BOI reporting requirements. Comments submitted in response to this interim final rule will be considered and addressed when a final rule, with changes if warranted, is issued.

This rule does not impose any new obligations, but rather exempts domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies from the Reporting Rule requirements, and it relaxes the deadlines for reporting obligations for foreign reporting companies. Thus, this rule may be immediately effective under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) as a “substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” For the same reason, a delayed effective date is unnecessary: because this interim final rule exempts domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies from the Reporting Rule requirements, rather than imposes obligations, the public does not need time to prepare to comply with it. Moreover, as explained in Section III, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impractical and unnecessary. FinCEN therefore finds good cause for making this rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register , as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this regulation is an economically significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this interim final rule has been reviewed by OMB.

As discussed above, FinCEN remains mindful of the “delicate balance”  35 that exists between the anticipated benefits and the costs imposed by requirements to report BOI. In promulgating this interim final rule, FinCEN anticipates certain changes, of varying magnitude, to both expected benefits and costs—with some easier to quantify than others. Each are discussed in turn below.

FinCEN further notes that, because portions of its regulatory impact analysis consider economic benefits and costs across the various parties it can reasonably expect to be affected by the rule, 36 whereas other portions limit the analysis of costs incurred to specific regulatory stakeholders, 37 certain differences in the accounting treatment of costs may arise. 38 Where relevant to the analysis, the discussion below makes note of the distinctions in treatment of costs.

FinCEN has historically considered the benefits of BOI reporting to a variety of affected parties, including law enforcement, other users of BOI data, and the general macroeconomy, 39 and has taken into consideration the extent to which benefits may change as a consequence of the interim final rule's reduction in scope. 40

FinCEN acknowledges that, while more intelligence might be collected in the absence of this deregulatory effort, it is unclear that the marginal benefits of the BOI that will no longer be reported would be comparable to the value of similar entities to which the reporting requirements still apply. As FinCEN has not yet been able to conduct the kinds of robust quantitative analysis necessary to estimate the incremental value of such intelligence, it recognizes that its estimated values to date have been partially speculative, albeit informed by feedback from both domestic and international partners in law enforcement and national security.

FinCEN anticipates that other parties may experience reduced benefits as a consequence of the change in scope. This would include parties, such as financial institutions and other affected parties  41 whose access to BOI data would consequently provide information about fewer legal entities. The extent to which reducing the scope of reporting companies would reduce the benefits of access to BOI data would, to some extent, depend on the relative informational value of the companies that would be newly exempt from reporting versus the informational value that would continue to be reported. Similarly, the reduction in expected benefits may, in some cases, be attenuated by the availability of alternative sources of similar beneficial ownership information ( e.g., commercially available information) to the extent that such sources can be treated as substitutes as opposed to complements. 42 FinCEN invites comments, particularly those including data, descriptions of costs and business practices, and studies, that would facilitate quantitative estimates of these economic benefits.

By reducing the number of companies that would be required to report their BOI to FinCEN, the corresponding costs associated with original reports, associated applications for FinCEN identifiers (both company and personal), and subsequent revisions or updates would be significantly reduced. FinCEN expects the primary value of the modification in scope provided by this interim final rule to be realized in the form of reduced costs.

As noted above, the expected costs of the rule originally included, but were not limited to: $21.7 billion in initial reporting costs in year 1 ($3.3 billion annually on average in each subsequent year) and $1.0 billion in year 1 updating costs ($2.3 billion expected to be incurred for similar activities in each subsequent year). Correspondingly, estimates for the five-year average cost per year were $6,996,732,512 for initial reports and $2,033,391,518 for updated reports. Because these costs applied a different framework under which pro forma accounting costs were expected to accrue, it is therefore necessary for FinCEN to account for the sunk costs of companies that have already reported their BOI when estimating the expected reduction in future costs. Based on calendar year 2024 data, FinCEN estimates that approximately 40 percent of expected year 1 costs have already accrued; therefore, the maximum reduction in costs that the interim final rule would enable is approximately $13.6 billion associated with first year activities of coming into reporting compliance. On a going-forward basis, FinCEN estimates that, on average the costs associated with the interim final rule would be approximately $9 billion lower per year. 43

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Public Law 96-354, applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 44 This rule is being immediately published as an interim final rule; it was not preceded by an NPRM. Therefore, the RFA does not apply to it.

Furthermore, because this rule exempts legal entities that would otherwise have been domestic reporting companies and U.S. persons who otherwise would have been required to report BOI, the compliance burdens originally estimated in connection with BOI reporting requirements will no longer apply to a substantial number of U.S. businesses  45 or to certain U.S. persons in their individual capacities as beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies. The RFA would not apply to regulatory burdens incurred in this capacity. 46

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in new, incremental expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $184 million or more in any one year. 47 FinCEN has determined that this rule will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $184 million or more. Accordingly, FinCEN has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed regulatory alternatives.

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, and its implementing regulations imposes certain requirements on federal agencies in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 48

The reporting requirements contained in the Reporting Rule were approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under OMB control number 1506-0076. In this interim final rule, FinCEN is exercising the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxiv) to exempt domestic reporting companies from BOI reporting requirements and the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7) to exempt foreign reporting companies from having to report the BOI of any U.S. persons who are beneficial owners of the foreign reporting company, as well as to exempt U.S. persons from having to provide such information to the foreign reporting companies for which they are a beneficial owners. Related to the second exemption, FinCEN is also exercising the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5318(a)(7) to revise the special rule associated with foreign pooled investment vehicles to exempt such entities from having to report the BOI of U.S. persons who exercise substantial control over the entity.

FinCEN has revised estimates for the reporting requirements in the Reporting Rule based on the changes made by this interim final rule.

OMB Control Number: 1506-0076.

Reporting Requirements: In accordance with the CTA, the rule retains a reporting requirement on foreign reporting companies to file with FinCEN reports that identify the entities' beneficial owners, and in certain cases their company applicants. 49 The report must also contain information about the entity itself. The reporting company must certify that the report is true, correct, and complete. The rule also continues to require foreign reporting companies to update the information in these reports as needed, and correct any previous incorrectly reported information, within specific timeframes. The collected information will be maintained by FinCEN and made accessible to authorized users.

Frequency: As required. 50

Description of Affected Public: Entities that are: (1) corporations, limited liability companies, or other entities; (2) formed under the law of a foreign country; and (3) registered to do business in any State or Tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the laws of a State or Indian tribe. The rule does not require corporations, limited liability companies, or other entities that are described in any of 24 specific exemptions to file BOI reports.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,667 reporting companies per year, on average. 51

Estimated Time per Respondent: As discussed in the Reporting Rule, the time burden for filing initial BOI reports will vary depending on the complexity of the reporting company's structure. FinCEN therefore estimates a range of time burden associated with filing an initial BOI report to account for the likely variance among reporting companies. FinCEN estimates the average burden of reporting BOI as 90 minutes per response for reporting companies with simple beneficial ownership structures (40 minutes to read the form and understand the requirement, 30 minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners and company applicants, 20 minutes to fill out and file the report, including attaching an image of an acceptable identification document for each beneficial owner and company applicant). FinCEN estimates the average burden of reporting BOI as 650 minutes per response for reporting companies with complex beneficial ownership structures (300 minutes to read the form and understand the requirement, 240 minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners and company applicants, 110 minutes to fill out and file the report, including attaching an image of an acceptable identification document for each beneficial owner and company applicant). FinCEN estimates the average burden of updating such reports for reporting companies with simple beneficial ownership structures as 40 minutes per update (20 minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners or company applicants and 20 minutes to fill out and file the update). FinCEN estimates the average burden of updating such reports for reporting companies with complex beneficial ownership structures as 170 minutes per update (60 minutes to identify and collect information about beneficial owners or company applicants and 110 minutes to fill out and file the update). FinCEN also assesses that reporting companies with intermediate beneficial ownership structures will have a time burden that is the average of the time burden for reporting companies with simple and complex structures.

Estimated Aggregate Reporting Burden Hours: 51,569 hours per year, on average.

FinCEN estimates that during Year 1, the filing of initial BOI reports will result in approximately 91,050 burden hours for reporting companies. In Year 2 and beyond, FinCEN estimates that the filing of initial BOI reports will result in 18,210 burden hours annually for new reporting companies. The three-year average of burden hours for initial BOI reports is 42,490 hours. FinCEN estimates that filing BOI updated reports in Year 1 would result in approximately 5,814 burden hours for reporting companies. In Year 2 and beyond, the estimated number of burden hours is 10,711. The three-year average of burden hours for updated BOI reports is 9,079 hours. The total three-year average of burden hours for BOI reports is 51,569.

Estimated Aggregate Reporting Cost: $20,735,713.46 per year, on average.

FinCEN estimated a range of costs associated with filing an initial BOI report to account for the likely variance among reporting companies. FinCEN estimates the average cost of filing an initial BOI report per reporting company to be a range of $82.06-$2,592.67. FinCEN estimates the average cost of filing an updated BOI report per reporting company to be $36.47-$155.01.

For initial BOI reports, the range of total costs in Year 1, assuming for the lower bound that all reporting companies are simple structures and assuming for the upper bound that all reporting companies are complex structures, is $2.5 million-$64.8 million. Applying the distribution of reporting companies' structure explained in connection with Table 1 of the original rule, FinCEN calculates total costs in Year 1 of initial BOI reports to be $16.4 million. In Year 2 and onwards, in which FinCEN assumes that initial BOI reports will be filed by newly created entities, the range of total costs is $410 thousand-$12.9 million annually. Applying the reporting companies' structure distribution explained in the original rule, the estimated total cost of initial BOI reports annually in Year 2 and onwards is $22.1 million.

For updated BOI reports, the range of total costs in Year 1, assuming for the lower bound that all reporting companies are simple structures and assuming for the upper bound that all reporting companies are complex structures is $173 thousand-$736 thousand. Applying the distribution of reporting companies' structure, FinCEN calculates total costs in Year 1 of updated BOI reports to be $318 thousand. In Year 2 and onwards, the range of total costs is $319 thousand-$1.35 million annually. Applying the reporting companies' structure distribution, the estimated total cost of updated BOI reports annually in Year 2 and onwards is $585 thousand. The three-year average cost for initial reports is $20,239,042 and $496,672 for updated reports.

There are no non-labor costs associated with these collections of information because FinCEN assumes that reporting companies already have the necessary equipment and tools to comply with the regulatory requirements.

OMB Control Number: 1506-0076.

Reporting Requirements: The rule continues to require the collection of information from individuals in order to issue them a FinCEN identifier. 52 This is a voluntary collection. The rule requires individuals to report to FinCEN certain information about themselves to receive a FinCEN identifier, in accordance with the CTA. 53 An individual is also required to submit updates of their identifying information as needed. FinCEN stores such information in its BOI database for access by authorized users.

Frequency: As required.

Description of Affected Public: Individuals associated with foreign reporting companies that elect to request an identifier independent of the FinCEN identifier requested by the associated company as part of its BOIR submission.

For individuals requesting FinCEN identifiers, FinCEN acknowledges that anyone who meets the statutory criteria could apply for a FinCEN identifier under the rule. However, the primary incentives for individual beneficial owners to apply for a FinCEN identifier are likely data security (an individual may see less risk in submitting personal identifiable information to FinCEN directly and exclusively than doing so indirectly through one or more individuals at one or more foreign reporting companies) and administrative efficiency (where an individual is likely to be identified as a beneficial owner of numerous foreign reporting companies). Company applicants that are responsible for registering many foreign reporting companies may have a similar incentive to request a FinCEN identifier in order to limit the number of companies with access to their personal information. This reasoning assumes that there is a one-to-many relationship between the company applicant and foreign reporting companies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 123,733 filers per year, on average. 54

Estimated Time per Respondent: As discussed in the Reporting Rule, FinCEN anticipates that initial FinCEN identifier applications would require approximately 20 minutes (10 minutes to read the form and understand the information required and 10 minutes to fill out and file the request, including attaching an image of an acceptable identification document), given that the information to be submitted to FinCEN would be readily available to the person requesting the FinCEN identifier. FinCEN estimates that updates would require 10 minutes (10 minutes to fill out and file the update).

Estimated Aggregate Reporting Burden Hours: 32,3802 hours per year, on average.

Estimated Aggregate Reporting Cost: $1,771,465.04 per year, on average.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden Hours: 83,949 hours per year, on average.

Estimated Total Reporting Cost: $22,507,178.50 per year, on average.

Estimated Change in Total Reporting Burden Hours: −91,538,379 hours per year, on average.

Estimated Change in Total Reporting Cost: $(9,011,817,866.50) per year, on average.

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA), OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule a “major rule,” for purposes of the CRA. 55

Under the CRA, such a rule generally may take effect no earlier than 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register . 56 Notwithstanding this requirement, the CRA allows agencies to dispense with the requirements of section 801 when the agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure” regarding the rule would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. If the agency finds such good cause, the rule shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 57 Pursuant to section 808(2), for the reasons discussed above, FinCEN for good cause finds that providing public notice or allowing for public comment before this interim final rule takes effect is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Treasury and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network amend 31 CFR part 1010 as follows:

On July 9, 2024, at 89 FR 56209, the Coast Guard updated its special local regulations for marine events in the Fifth District. In that rule, the Coast Guard sought to add Tiki Lee's Shootout on the River High Speed Power Boat Event and Air Show to the list of events in North Carolina in 33 CFR 100.501. However, due to a faulty instruction, the Coast Guard was unable to add the event. This rule corrects that error.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 with the following correcting amendment.

On October 3, 2024, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake Hill, NJ in the Federal Register (89 FR 80436). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this regulatory change. During the comment period that ended November 4, 2024, we received two comments, and those comments are addressed in Section IV of this Final Rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. The Amtrak Portal Bridge will continue to operate under its regular operating schedule found in 33 CFR 117.723(e), but there will be a difference in the horizontal clearance. Presently, the Amtrak Portal Bridge provides 88 feet horizontal clearance in the east channel and 91 feet horizontal clearance in the west channel. This rule allows the bridge to only open to 55 feet horizontal clearance in the east channel and the west channel will be closed to all navigation.

Construction on the new Portal Bridge North will prevent the existing Amtrak Portal Bridge from fully opening in the horizontal position in order to prevent the swing span from striking the new Portal Bridge North during construction. The construction will impact the Amtrak Portal Bridge for approximately 2 years, from March 3, 2025, to March 3, 2027 (estimated), after which the existing bridge will be demolished. The NPRM proposed that the restricted clearance would begin on February 1, 2025, however, due to project delays, the restricted clearance will begin on or about March 3, 2025. While this regulation will be effective 30 days after publication, the Bridge owner can still operate the bridge to its full opening until constructions limits the horizontal opening.

There is one regular commercial waterway user that transits the Portal Bridge on an average of two to three round trips per week. There are also some recreational vessels that transit the bridge. The Coast Guard's review of the bridge logs in the last two years shows that bridge openings average 25 per month. Vessels narrower than 55 feet wide will still be able to transit through the narrower opening of the bridge. There are no other known commercial or recreational vessels that will be impacted by this rule.

As noted in Section II of this preamble, the Coast Guard provided 30 days for comment regarding this rule and two comments in the docket were received. We provide a detailed discussion below in response to each comment in turn.

We received one comment from Towboat Harbor Carriers Association dated November 4, 2024. The comment letter (dated October 30, 2024) included the following four specific concerns:

Lack of Maritime Stakeholder Engagement During the Bridge Permitting Process: The commentor stated that the first public meeting regarding the Portal Bridge was not held until July 26, 2022. This was the first time the maritime industry was made aware that the replacement bridge plan that would limit vertical clearance, and that the engineering plan failed to identify that the location of the new bridge would impact the ability of the existing bridge to fully open.

Coast Guard Response: For clarification, this rule does not affect the vertical clearance of the bridge as implied in the comment above. Comprehensive maritime stakeholder engagement was conducted during a Marine Traffic Study conducted in 2006 to gather input regarding the vertical and horizontal clearance of the proposed fixed bridge. Numerous maritime stakeholders were contacted during this study for input. After the conclusion of that study and consideration of the feedback, the Coast Guard widely disseminated a Public Notice on 6 April 2010 with the new bridge dimensions and proceeded with issuing a permit having received no negative comments regarding the vertical clearance of the bridge. The Coast Guard permitted the replacement of this bridge on June 6, 2013, based on a design provided by the bridge owner, Amtrak, and its accompanying environmental impact statement approved by the Federal Railroad Administration. Immediately upon being made aware in 2022 of the impact the new bridge's construction and design would have on the ability of the existing bridge to fully open, the Coast Guard facilitated maritime stakeholder outreach to fully assess impacts to navigation.

The Proposed Rule Unreasonably Impacts Marine Navigation: The commentor also stated that the proposed modification to the bridge fails to meet the reasonable needs of navigation because it forces mariners to transit through a reduced opening or under the bridge in the closed position.

Coast Guard Response: The location and design of the replacement bridge, coupled with the design and age of the current bridge, make it physically impossible to increase the horizontal opening of the current bridge during this phase of construction. Upon review, the Coast Guard identified only one vessel, a commercial tug and barge, that would be impacted by the proposed modification the bridge's operation. The county municipality that owns the barge and transports the cargo successfully transported this cargo by land transportation between 2016 and 2022 and has shifted back to land transportation of the cargo recently in July 2024. The bridge owner investigated various methods of minimizing impacts on marine navigation and determined the proposed construction schedule best balanced impacts on marine transportation with impacts on the 150,000-200,000 daily train commuters who use the existing bridge. Based on the above factors, the Coast Guard assessed that the temporary modification to the bridge's operating schedule meets the reasonable needs of maritime navigation. The Coast Guard will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to adequately understand and serve the needs of all transportation modes while meeting the reasonable needs of maritime navigation.

Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Safety, Navigation and Operations Committee Consultation: The commentor requested that the Committee be consulted on all bridge proposals.

Coast Guard Response: The Coast Guard has implemented this consultation as a standard practice for bridge proposals in the Port of New York and New Jersey and also allowed for public comment on the regulatory change through the published NPRM.

Bridge Owner Accountability to Avoid Conflicts During Construction: The commentor stated that bridge owners should take accountability for failure to avoid conflicts during construction and that affected parties be compensated for significant commercial losses incurred.

Coast Guard Response: The Coast Guard is not the bridge owner. However, when considering bridge actions, the Coast Guard promotes the maritime transportation goals of the Nation while accommodating, to the greatest extent practicable, the needs of all transportation modes. When conflicts arise during bridge construction that are unavoidable, the Coast Guard works with stakeholders across all transportation modes to best meet the needs of commerce in an equitable compromise of all interests.

We received a second comment from Vinik Marine Services, LLC dated November 4, 2024. The comment included the following two specific concerns:

Inadequate Notice/Approval of Bridge Plans: The commentor stated stating that full implications for navigation should have been clear and presented to stakeholders for comment before permits were issued, and as construction progressed as there are impacts to navigation.

Coast Guard Response: Comprehensive maritime stakeholder engagement was conducted by the Coast Guard during a Marine Traffic Study conducted in 2006 to determine the vertical and horizontal clearance of the proposed fixed bridge. The Coast Guard considered this report in reviewing the constructability of the proposed bridge in the Public Notice issued on 6 April 2010. In 2016, the sole remaining commercial vessel regularly transiting through the bridge ceased operations when the municipality that owned the cargo shifted to land transportation. In 2022, that municipality shifted back to barge transportation, concurrent with the bridge owner notifying the Coast Guard that new bridge construction would impact the ability of the existing bridge to fully open. Immediately upon being made aware of the impact of new bridge construction on the ability of the existing bridge to be fully open, the Coast Guard facilitated maritime stakeholder outreach to fully assess impacts to navigation. The bridge owner hosted a public meeting for preconstruction on July 26, 2022, to present the project overview and construction schedule, including approximate time frame for channel closures and restrictions. In addition to regular outreach to impacted stakeholders as construction progressed, a second mariners' meeting was held on September 18, 2024, to prepare the stakeholders upcoming channel closures and restrictions.

Alternative Options Not Economically Feasible: The commentor stated that the option put forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to purchase a barge narrow enough to transit through the 55-foot bridge opening is not economically feasible. The commentor also stated that modifying a tugboat to transit underneath the bridge when closed is also not economically feasible.

Coast Guard Response: This comment is noted. The Coast Guard will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to adequately serve the needs of all transportation modes while meeting the reasonable needs of maritime navigation.

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

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

Background information on the initial analysis of this action can be found in the NPRM, published October 3, 2024 (89 FR 80436). As noted in the NPRM, the location and design of the replacement bridge, coupled with the design and age of the current bridge, prevent operation of a commercial tug that tows a 70 feet wide barge because the 55-foot opening is too narrow for the barge to transit safely. The Coast Guard notes no evidence of this barge making transits since July of 2024, so the potential impact noted in the NPRM will not be realized.

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

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

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given the reduced horizontal clearance. Background information for the Impact on Small Entities on this action can be found in the NPRM, published October 3, 2024 (89 FR 80436).

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, or the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implication for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

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

On July 3, 2023, we published a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 1301, 1302 (except for 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c), which were not submitted for inclusion in the SIP), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, as amended on July 20, 2021. 1 We based our limited disapproval action on deficiencies identified in the submitted rules. This limited approval and limited disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions eighteen (18) months after August 2, 2023, and highway sanctions six (6) months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Act and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(1), offset sanctions apply 18 months after the effective date of a disapproval and highway sanctions apply 6 months after the offset sanctions, unless we determine that the deficiencies forming the basis of the disapproval have been corrected.

On December 30, 2024, the AVAQMD amended Rules 1301, 1302 (except for 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c)), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, and adopted new Rule 1314. These amended and adopted rules were intended to address the deficiencies that were the basis for our limited disapproval in our July 3, 2023 action.

On January 7, 2025, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted Rules 1301, 1302 (except for 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c), which were not submitted for inclusion in the SIP), 1303, 1304, 1305, 1309, and 1314 to the EPA. CARB is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals. In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are proposing approval of AVAQMD Rules 1301, 1302 (except 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c)), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, and we are proposing a limited approval of Rule 1314, because we believe they correct the deficiencies identified in our July 3, 2023 limited disapproval action and meet other applicable CAA requirements. Our approval of Rule 1314 is limited because the EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rule based on a separate deficiency that does not meet applicable CAA requirements. Based on this proposed action, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay the imposition of the offset sanction and defer the imposition of the highway sanction that was triggered by our July 3, 2023 limited disapproval.

The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this stay and deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this final determination, and our proposed approval of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, and our proposed limited approval of Rule 1314, we intend to take subsequent final action to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no comments are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and sanction clocks associated with our July 3, 2023 final action will be permanently terminated on the effective date of a final rule approval.

We are making an interim final determination to stay the application of the offset sanction and to defer the application imposition of the highway sanction associated with our limited disapproval of AVAQMD Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309 (as amended on July 20, 2021). This determination is based on a concurrent proposal to approve AVAQMD Rules 1301, 1302 (except for 1302(C)(5) and 1302(C)(7)(c) which was not submitted for inclusion in the SIP), 1303, 1304, 1305, and 1309, and limitedly approve Rule 1314 (as amended or adopted on December 30, 2024) as satisfying the relevant CAA requirements which, if finalized, would correct the deficiencies that initiated the sanctions under section 179 of the CAA.

Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has corrected the deficiencies identified in the EPA's July 3, 2023 limited disapproval action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes effect. 2 However, by this action, the EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the EPA's determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.

The EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the deficiencies that were the basis for the limited disapproval that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to apply sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to stay the application of the offset sanction and defer the application of the highway sanction while the EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. 3

This action stays or defers Federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk;

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

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

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

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 action as discussed in Section II of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 27, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

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

The A season apportionment of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 1,067 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).

The 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 2,525 mt as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 1,000 mt of the A season apportionment of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)( 1 ). Therefore, in accordance with and as required by § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(C), NMFS apportions 1,000 mt of Pacific cod from the A season jig gear apportionment to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

The harvest specifications for 2025 Pacific cod included in final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) are revised as follows: 67 mt to the A season apportionment and 779 mt to the annual amount for vessels using jig gear, and 3,525 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.

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) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Pacific cod specified from jig vessels to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 18, 2025.

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

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