On May 6, 2003, Commerce issued a clarification to its regulations covering the automatic assessment of duties in market economy AD proceedings, § 351.212(c). 1 Commerce explained in that clarification notice that if the agency conducted an administrative review of a producer of subject merchandise pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act and § 351.213, there was an unaffiliated reseller that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review, and the producer was unaware that the reseller's exports of subject merchandise were destined for the United States during that period, then the merchandise being exported by the reseller would not be liquidated at the assessment rate Commerce determined for the producer in the administrative review or automatically at the rate required as a deposit at the time of entry. 2 Instead, Commerce explained that the entries of subject merchandise exported by the reseller during the period of review would be liquidated at the all-others rate determined in the underlying investigation if there was no company-specific review of the reseller for that review period. 3 Commerce explained that it was implementing this policy because without it, “there may be little incentive for resellers to request a review to obtain their own specific rates,” perpetuating the possible application of inaccurate rates based on the producer's selling experience instead of the reseller's selling experience. 4 In addition, Commerce explained that it had witnessed that “resellers `shop' for margins by waiting until the completion of [a] review to determine whether the producer's rate determined in the review or the all-others rate is more favorable.”  5

Commerce is now seeking public comments on whether it should consider further modifications to its unaffiliated reseller practice. Specifically, if Commerce conducts an administrative review of a producer and the rate determined for the producer during the period of review is higher than the all-others rate, Commerce is requesting public comments on whether the all-others rate should continue to be applied to the merchandise produced by the examined entity and exported by an unexamined unaffiliated reseller to the United States or whether the higher rate calculated for the producer should instead be applied to the unaffiliated reseller. In other words, should Commerce implement a policy in which it applies the higher of either the examined producer's rate or the all-others rate?

As explained in the 2003 Clarification Notice, Commerce would prefer that exporters of subject merchandise request an administrative review to increase the agency's confidence that the rate applied to those exporters is reasonable. 6 Pursuant to § 351.109(g), when resellers request an administrative review and are not selected for individual examination, Commerce will apply a rate derived from the examined respondents to those entries of subject merchandise which is period-specific, unlike the all-others rate, which was determined in the earlier underlying investigation. If an unaffiliated reseller decides not to request an administrative review of its merchandise, that suggests that the reseller may believe that an administrative review of its merchandise would not result in a rate lower than the all-others rate. Applying the higher of the examined producer's rate or the all-others rate to an unaffiliated reseller for which an administrative review was not requested could incentivize unaffiliated resellers to request an administrative review of their own merchandise rather than presume that their merchandise would always benefit from a potentially low all-others rate.

Commerce is therefore requesting comments from the public on whether it should continue to apply only the all-others rate to unaffiliated resellers of subject merchandise in market economy AD reviews or if it should modify its unaffiliated reseller practice to instead direct Customs and Border Protection to liquidate those entries at the higher of the examined producer's rate or the all-others rate.

Whether Commerce continues to apply its current unaffiliated reseller policy for market economy AD reviews or modifies that practice, despite the publication of the 2003 Clarification Notice over 20 years ago, many unaffiliated resellers continue to argue in Commerce's proceedings that Commerce should apply the rate calculated for an examined unaffiliated producer to their merchandise when that rate is lower than the all-others rate. Commerce is therefore considering revising its assessment regulation, § 351.212, to incorporate an unaffiliated reseller policy, modified or unmodified, into its regulations. The policy concerns that supported the implementation of the 2003 unaffiliated reseller practice continue to be relevant today, and including that practice in regulations would help improve and enhance the enforcement of AD determinations by giving notice to the general public and further preventing the “gaming” of the trade remedy laws by unaffiliated resellers seeking the lowest AD assessment rate. In short, such a modification to Commerce's regulations could help prevent the evasion of the AD laws.

Commerce therefore also invites the public to propose suggested language to add to § 351.212 to reflect its unaffiliated reseller policy, either unmodified or revised as suggested herein.

Section 351.214(l) of Commerce's regulations provide for an expedited review immediately following a CVD investigation if, in the investigation, Commerce limited the number of exporters or producers to be individually examined under section 777A(e)(2)(A) of the Act and did not accept voluntary respondents under section 782(a) of the Act and § 351.109(h). 7 The CVD expedited review regulation was not issued pursuant to any specific CVD statutory provision but was promulgated to bring the CVD regulations into conformity with Article 19.3 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 8 In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that the “individualized-determination provisions” of section 777A(e) of the Act, along with the “regulatory-implementation authority” of section 103(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, provided Commerce with the authority to promulgate the expedited review regulation at § 351.214(l). 9 However, the Federal Circuit also held that the expediated review provision was not the only means by which Commerce could bring United States obligations into accordance with the SCM Agreement and that it provided “one procedure for giving effect to the primary policy of providing individual-company rate determinations.”  10

Since the CVD expedited review regulation was originally promulgated in 1997, Commerce has conducted only a limited number of CVD expedited reviews. 11 Because each review is conducted on a truncated timeline and may cover numerous exporters and producers, Commerce has discovered that such proceedings require an inordinate amount of agency time and resources. 12 Furthermore, Commerce is currently conducting proceedings for a historically large number of AD and CVD proceedings. 13

Accordingly, in light of the time and resource burdens of CVD expedited reviews, Commerce's current resource constraints, the fact that only a small number of CVD expedited reviews have been conducted to date, and the fact that the current regulation is not mandated by the Act, Commerce is reconsidering the necessity or wisdom of retaining the current CVD expedited review provision, § 351.214(l), especially since other avenues already exist to provide exporters and producers alternative opportunities to request an individual-company subsidy rate, such as participating as a voluntary respondent in investigations, 14 requesting a “new shipper review,”  15 requesting an administrative review, 16 or participating as a voluntary respondent in administrative reviews.

As part of its reconsideration of the CVD expediated review regulation at § 351.214(l), Commerce is seeking public comment on whether it should remove, retain, or modify the regulation. Specifically, if members of the public support either the withdrawal or the retention of the regulation in its current form, Commerce invites those parties to identify the factual, legal, and policy reasons the burden and resources required to administer and enforce the current regulation are or are not justified by the benefit of the existing regulatory language.

On the other hand, if members of the public support a modification to the CVD expedited review regulation, Commerce seeks comments on desired changes to § 351.214(l), including methods to reduce the resources required to implement it, such as by making the conduct of a CVD expedited review discretionary, rather than mandatory or requiring that all requests for a CVD expedited review include complete initial questionnaire responses. In short, if Commerce were to retain but modify § 351.214(l), Commerce invites parties to propose modifications that would relieve Commerce of the many burdens that accompany the application of the current regulation, along with the factual, legal, and policy reasons in support of those proposals and any proposed regulatory language.

We are issuing this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to inform the public that Commerce is considering revising and codifying two of its policies and regulations. One revision involves Commerce's unaffiliated reseller policy in market economy AD administrative reviews, with a possible addition to § 351.212, and the second either removes or substantially revises Commerce's procedures in conducting an expedited CVD review pursuant to § 351.214(l). Specifically, Commerce is inviting parties to provide the following comments, including the factual, legal, and policy reasons in support of their views and any proposed regulatory language:

(1) If Commerce conducts an AD administrative review of a producer of subject merchandise in a market economy, should the AD rate applied to subject merchandise produced by the examined producer and exported by an unexamined unaffiliated reseller to the United States be the all-others rate, or the higher of the producer's AD rate and the all-others rate?

(2) In light of the resources required to administer the current CVD expedited review regulation, § 351.214(l), and the fact that the Act does not require that Commerce conduct CVD expedited reviews, should Commerce remove, retain, or modify that regulation? Further, if Commerce were to retain, but modify § 351.214(l), Commerce also invites parties to propose suggestions for modifications to the regulation that would relieve Commerce of many of the administrative burdens that accompany the application of the current regulation.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On January 6, 2025, an organization notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 10-10:30 p.m. on August 9, 2025. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in Rainy Lake approximately 250 yards northwest of Ranier Beach Park in Ranier, MN. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Duluth (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the barge.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 8 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 9, 2025. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 200 yards of a barge in Rainy Lake located approximately 250 yards northwest of Ranier Beach Park in Ranier, MN. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10-10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of Ranier Lake for 3 hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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

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

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting 3 hours that would prohibit entry within 200 yards of a fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0221 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the proposed rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.

We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

I. Executive Summary

PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend any requirements in the Rulemaking Procedures (49 CFR part 106), the Hazardous Materials Program Procedures (49 CFR part 107), or the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180)—as well as any letters of interpretation, guidance documents, or other material implementing those regulations—to eliminate undue burdens on the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources and to improve government efficiency. As part of this effort, PHMSA is seeking stakeholder feedback regarding opportunities to identify widely used hazardous material special permits with established safety records for conversion into deregulatory provisions with broader applicability. PHMSA is also seeking stakeholder feedback regarding opportunities to introduce efficiencies to its petitions process. Finally, PHMSA also solicits stakeholder feedback on whether to amend the HMR to require PHMSA to conduct periodic, mandatory regulatory reviews.

PHMSA's HMR play an essential role in the energy supply chain by ensuring the safe, reliable, and affordable transportation of energy products to millions of Americans. Annually, more than 3.3 billion tons of hazardous materials are shipped by rail, vessel, highway, and air that include a wide range of energy commodities such as more than 88 million barrels of crude oil, three million shipments of radioactive materials (including nuclear fuel and waste products), more than 230 million barrels of ethanol shipped by rail as well as other biofuels. 1 The HMR also govern transportation of critical minerals, explosives used in energy production activity, chemicals used in refinery processes, waste products from energy exploration and production activity and other materials integral to the identification, development, extraction, and use of domestic energy resources. Ensuring compliance with the HMR is the responsibility of a wide range of entities, from online internet retailers to railroads, commercial trucking companies, and large oil and gas companies. The HMR impose incident reporting obligations (part 171, subpart B) and the Hazardous Materials Program Procedures impose a registration and fee requirement (part 107, subpart G) on offerors and carriers of hazardous materials. Each of the entities subject to the HMR must invest scarce resources in satisfying some combination of PHMSA registration, reporting, qualification, packaging, labeling, documentation, testing, security, and emergency response planning requirements. The costs of those investments are often passed along from suppliers of refined and unrefined energy products to other entities in the energy supply chain, to the industrial manufacturing and commercial goods sectors, and, ultimately, to the American consumer. PHMSA must ensure that the burdens imposed by the HMR on stakeholders are necessary to serve the public interest.

Conducting periodic, retrospective reviews of the HMR is one way to achieve that objective. Presidents of both political parties dating to the 1970s have called on Federal agencies by Executive order (E.O.) to conduct broad reviews of existing regulations, 2 and scholars and other experts in administrative law have long touted the benefits of adhering to such a process. 3 The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires review of regulations on a 10-year review cycle, as specified by 11(d) of DOT Order 2011.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings.”  4 DOT has previously issued plans and regulations requiring retrospective review  5 and solicited stakeholder input to inform those reviews on multiple occasions and is currently taking recommendations on the DOT-wide opportunities for modification or repeal of regulations to reduce undue compliance burdens. 6 Congress requires periodic regulatory reviews on a limited scale; section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires PHMSA and other agencies to conduct post-issuance review of agency rules that impose a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities” such as small business and local governments.

While PHMSA has conducted retrospective regulatory reviews in the past, 7 PHMSA expects there remain requirements in the HMR that produce regulatory burdens larger than the benefits they provide. The HMR contain numerous requirements that have been in effect for decades without undergoing a comprehensive cost-benefit review. 8 Neither the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Public Law 93-633, codified at 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., nor the HMR have ever contained an explicit cost-benefit requirement; rather, any cost-benefit analyses performed have been pursuant to discretionary Federal policy. 9

PHMSA has received stakeholder comments questioning the rigor of cost-benefit analyses supporting proposed amendments to its HMR. 10 Congress has also on at least one occasion raised concerns about the sufficiency of cost-benefit analysis that supported a PHMSA regulation, going so far as to enact legislation requiring the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate an economic analysis conducted by PHMSA. 11 Though the costs of many—and perhaps most—of the provisions of the HMR are justified by their benefits, conducting periodic and comprehensive retrospective regulatory review ensures that any compliance burdens remain justified in light of the evolution of technology, operational practices, and PHMSA's regulatory requirements.

Like his predecessors, President Trump has issued a series of E.O.s directing PHMSA and other Federal agencies to take a hard look at their existing regulations, particularly with respect to those that impose burdens on the energy sector. 12 E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” mandates in section 3 that “the heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations . . . to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources . . . .” In addition, E.O. 14241, “Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry,” states in section 2 that “[i]t is a national priority to support the domestic coal industry by removing Federal regulatory barriers that undermine coal production . . .” and mandates in section 6 that “. . . the Secretary of Transportation . . . shall identify any guidance, regulations, programs, and policies within their respective executive department or agency that seek to transition the Nation away from coal production and electricity generation.” Similarly, section 1 of E.O. 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” promotes the integrity and expansion of U.S. energy infrastructure to ensure a “reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation's manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.” Lastly, E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” acknowledges at section 1 the cumulative burden placed on “[U.S.] economic growth and ability to build and innovate, and hampers [U.S.] global competitiveness” and therefore calls on agencies to identify opportunities to alleviate unnecessary regulatory compliance burdens imposed on industry and the public.

To serve the public interest and satisfy the requirements in President Trump's recent directives, PHMSA is seeking feedback from stakeholders on several key points:

1. Identification of specific regulatory provisions within the HMR, as listed in section III below. This includes any implementing guidance or interpretations of those regulations that may impose an undue burden on identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources. Additionally, stakeholders should consider examples of government inefficiency, where compliance requirements impose significant burdens relative to minimal safety benefits or hinder technological innovations.

2. The nature and magnitude of these burdens, including the specific categories and number of regulated entities affected, as well as the compliance costs and implementation challenges experienced by those entities.

3. Suggestions for potential amendments (including any rescissions) to those regulatory provisions.

4. An assessment of the incremental compliance costs and benefits (including benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs, safety harms, and environmental harms) anticipated from those amendments.

5. The safety consequences of any proposed amendments.

PHMSA may also consider adopting a procedural requirement mandating periodic regulatory reviews ( e.g., on a 5- or 3-year cycle) of the provisions in the HMR. PHMSA may hold a public meeting soon to supplement or to clarify the materials received in response to this ANPRM.

Concerning incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both a one-time implementation and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain the support for any estimates it can provide that accompany a proposed rule. Other commenters may weigh in on the validity and accuracy of the data. Please also identify the baseline ( e.g., a particular edition of a consensus industry standard; widespread voluntary practice; or documentation of sample surveys and other data or information) from which those incremental costs and benefits arise. When estimates are approximate or uncertain, consider using a range or specifying the distribution in other ways.

When responding to a specific question below please note the topic letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

1. Should PHMSA consider incorporating within its HMR an explicit requirement to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews at specified intervals to identify undue burdens and improve government efficiency? Please identify any specific regulatory language would be appropriate for that purpose. What interval would be appropriate? How should PHMSA provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement in those reviews?

2. Are there existing special permits (issued or requested) or petitions for rulemaking that PHMSA should consider prioritizing to reduce regulatory burdens and improve government efficiency?

3. What regulatory amendments, interpretations, or determinations ( e.g., preemption determinations pursuant to part 107, subpart C), or revised protocols ( e.g., Memoranda of Understanding with other Federal agencies or States) could eliminate undue burdens or improve government efficiency by improving or clarifying the scope of PHMSA's regulatory oversight relative to that of each of other Federal agencies and State regulatory authorities? Please identify specific amendments or rescissions meriting consideration.

4. Do PHMSA regulations, implementing guidance, or practices governing special permits in its Hazardous Materials Program Procedures (part 107, subpart B) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific amendments to regulations, guidance, or protocols meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

5. Should PHMSA consider requesting impact data in its Hazardous Materials Program Procedures (part 107, subpart B) to assist in quantifying the benefits that might be realized by the issuance of the permit?

6. Do PHMSA compliance practices concerning the National Environmental Policy Act place an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are there any categorical exclusions PHMSA should adopt for its regulatory oversight activities? If so, please identify the activities meriting a categorical exclusion, as well as the technical, safety, and environmental bases for those additional categorical exclusions. Are there any categorical exclusions employed by other Federal agencies that PHMSA should adopt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336c?

7. Are there any interpretations or widely used special permits with established safety records meriting codification within PHMSA's HMR because they would facilitate identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources or would otherwise improve government efficiency?

8. What number of small businesses, small organizations, or small government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 6010 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations are subject to HMR requirements or are bear significant costs associated with HMR compliance by PHMSA-jurisdictional entities? Please provide information about the nature and types of activities of such small businesses and other small entities. Are there any existing HMR requirements that disproportionately impact small businesses or other small entities? Are there alternative regulatory approaches the agency should consider that would achieve its regulatory objectives while minimizing any significant economic impact on small businesses or other small entities?

1. What provisions of the HMR either impose an undue burden on identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, or are examples of government inefficiency, insofar as they impose outsized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or limit technological innovation? Are there any HMR provisions that are unnecessary because their safety benefits that are adequately addressed by other HMR requirements?

2. Do the terms defined within various provisions (typically at the beginning of each subpart) of the Hazardous Materials Program Procedures or the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

3. Are there opportunities for efficiency gains in Hazardous Materials Program Procedures requirements at part 107 governing each of the designation of approval and certifying agencies (subpart E), registration of certain manufacturers, assemblers, repairers, inspectors, testers and design certification engineers for cargo tanks and cargo tank vehicles (subpart F), and approvals of cylinder inspection, testing, and qualification entities (subpart I) for affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

4. What consensus international or industry standards and recommended practices (or updated editions thereof) merit incorporation by reference within the HMR because they would eliminate undue burdens on affected stakeholders? What consensus international or industry standards and recommended practices currently incorporated by reference within the HMR merit updating or revision. Please identify the pertinent standards and recommended practices as well the specific provisions of the HMR that should reference those standards, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

5. Do HMR reporting and notification requirements ( e.g., part 171, subpart B) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are any of those reporting requirements inefficient because of their limited safety value compared to their associated costs? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

6. Do procedures in the HMR at part 171, subpart C, authorizing use of certain international transportation standards ( e.g., the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air or Transport Canada's Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

7. Are there elements of the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT) at part 172 that impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are there particular materials whose safety risks do not merit inclusion within the HMT? Are there assignments of requirements (either via hazard class, packing group, special provisions, packaging or quantity limitations, or vessel stowage restrictions) which are not commensurate with the safety risks posed by specific materials? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

8. Do any of the special provisions to the HMT listed at § 172.102 as applied to one or more materials listed in the HMT impose undue burdens on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

9. Are there any HMR provisions at part 172 pertaining to shipping paper documentation (subpart C), hazard marking (subpart D), labeling (subpart E), placarding (subpart F), and emergency response information (subpart G) that may be revised or modernized to assist stakeholders in efficiently communicating the hazard of materials transported? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

10. Do any of the HMR provisions at part 172, subpart H, pertaining to training impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

11. Do HMR requirements at part 172, subpart I, governing the safety and security plans impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

12. Would amendment of the various exceptions ( e.g., for de minimis quantities, light bulbs, etc.) set forth in the HMR ( e.g., in part 173, subparts A and D) remove or alleviate undue burdens on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

13. Do any of the HMR requirements at part 173, subpart B, governing preparation of hazardous materials for transportation impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

14. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for Class 1 explosive materials set forth at part 173, subpart C, and elsewhere in the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

15. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for Class 7 radioactive materials set forth at part 173, subpart I, and elsewhere in the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

16. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for hazardous gases set forth at part 173, subpart G, and elsewhere in the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

17. Do any of the classification and packaging requirements for hazardous materials other than Class 1 and 9 materials set forth at part 173, subparts D through F, and elsewhere in the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

18. Do any of the requirements for rail transportation of hazardous materials set forth at part 174 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

19. Do any of the requirements for aircraft transportation of hazardous materials set forth at part 175 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

20. Do any of the requirements for vessel transportation of hazardous materials set forth at part 176 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

21. Do any of the requirements for highway transportation of hazardous materials set forth at part 177 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

22. Do any of the specifications for hazardous materials packaging other than rail tank cars set forth at part 178 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

23. Do any of the specifications for rail tank cars of hazardous materials set forth at part 179 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

24. Specific to transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail tank car, PHMSA is interested in hearing from stakeholders about the possibility of any future markets for transportation of LNG by rail tank car. As such, PHMSA seeks information on the following questions. First, is there a current or potential future market for special permits to transport LNG by rail tank car? Second, is there current market demand to transport other flammable cryogenic materials, including, but not limited to, ethylene in tank cars built to the DOT-113C120W9 specifications? Note the DOT-113C120W9 rail tank car is characterized as having minimum wall thickness of the outer jacket shell and the outer jacket heads must be no less than 9/16 -inch after forming, which exceeds the 7/16 -inch outer jacket shell as specified in 49 CFR 179.400-8(d)(1).

25. Do any of the requirements of the HMR impose an undue burden on the transportation of any materials such as explosives used in mining, exploration, or the production of coal, or the transportation of coal combustion residuals produced from the burning of coal in coal-fired power plants or otherwise found in supply chains related to coal mining or coal-related energy generation projects?

26. Do any of the requirements for continuing qualification and maintenance of hazardous material packaging set forth at part 180 of the HMR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (including the categories and number of affected entities) supporting those recommended amendments.

PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend any requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR; 49 CFR parts 190 through 199)—as well as any letters of interpretation, guidance documents, or other materials implementing those regulations—to eliminate undue burdens on the identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources and to improve government efficiency. 1 PHMSA also solicits stakeholder feedback on whether to amend the PSR to require PHMSA conduct periodic, mandatory regulatory reviews.

PHMSA's pipeline safety program plays an essential role in the energy supply chain, ensuring the safe, reliable, and affordable transportation of energy products to millions of ordinary Americans. The PSR apply to more than 3.3 million miles of pipelines that are used to transport natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum products, carbon dioxide, and other gases and hazardous liquids to end users. The PSR also ensure the safety of nearly 400 underground natural gas storage (UNGS) facilities and 177 liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities—from peak shaving facilities operated by local distribution companies to large-scale export terminals supplying natural gas to U.S. allies and trading partners around the world. 2

More than 3,000 operators of transportation-related pipelines, UNGS facilities, and LNG facilities are responsible for complying with the PSR, each of whom must invest scarce resources to satisfy PHMSA's design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and reporting requirements. The costs of these investments are passed along to other entities in the energy supply chain (including downstream shippers and pipeline systems, oil and gas companies, and electric and gas utilities), to the industrial manufacturing and commercial goods sectors, and, ultimately, to the American consumer. PHMSA has an obligation to ensure that the burdens imposed by its regulations on all potential stakeholders are necessary for the PSR to serve the public interest.

Conducting periodic, retrospective reviews of the PSR is one way to achieve that objective. Presidents of both political parties dating to the 1970s have called on Federal agencies to conduct broad reviews of existing regulations by Executive order (E.O.), 3 and scholars and other experts in administrative law have long touted the benefits of conducting retrospective regulatory reviews. 4 The Department of Transportation (DOT) requires review of regulations on a 10-year review cycle, as specified by 11(d) of DOT Order 2011.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings.”  5 DOT previously issued plans and regulations requiring retrospective review  6 and solicited stakeholder input to inform those reviews on multiple occasions—and is currently taking recommendations on the DOT-wide opportunities for modification or repeal of regulations to reduce compliance burdens. 7 Congress requires periodic regulatory reviews on a limited scale; section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires PHMSA and other agencies to conduct post-issuance review of agency rules that impose a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities” such as small business and local governments.

This is not a new focus for PHMSA, which has conducted broad retrospective regulatory reviews in the past. 8 However, PHMSA expects that further improvements to its regulations can be made to reduce burdens. The PSR contain requirements that have been in effect for decades without undergoing a comprehensive cost-benefit review. 9 Indeed, Congress did not even require DOT to perform a cost-benefit analysis to support the addition of new safety standards to the PSR until enactment of the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996, Public Law 104-304, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(5). The Federal courts have also raised serious questions about the rigor of cost-benefit analyses used to support some provisions in recent rulemakings addressing pipeline safety;  10 commenters have echoed those concerns in subsequent rulemaking proceedings. 11 Though the costs of many—and perhaps most—of the provisions in the PSR are justified by their benefits, conducting periodic, and comprehensive, regulatory reviews ensures that any compliance burdens remain justified in light of the evolution of technology, operator practices, and PHMSA's regulatory requirements.

Like his predecessors, President Trump has issued a series of E.O.s directing PHMSA and other Federal agencies to take a hard look at their existing regulations, particularly with respect to those that impose burdens on the energy sector. 12 E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” mandates at section 3 that “the heads of all agencies shall review all existing regulations . . . to identify those agency actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources . . . .” Similarly, section 1 of E.O. 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” promotes the integrity and expansion of U.S. energy infrastructure to ensure a “reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation's manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.” Lastly, E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” acknowledges at section 1 that the cumulative burden placed on “[U.S.] economic growth and ability to build and innovate, and hampers [U.S.] global competitiveness” and therefore calls on agencies to identify opportunities to alleviate unnecessary regulatory compliance burdens imposed on industry and the general public.

To serve the public interest and satisfy the requirements in President Trump's recent directives, PHMSA is soliciting stakeholder feedback on, among other things: (1) identification of regulatory provisions within those parts of the PSR listed in section III below—including any implementing guidance including interpretations of those regulations—that could impose an undue burden on identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, or that are examples of government inefficiency insofar as they impose outsized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or limit technological innovation; (2) the nature and magnitude of those burdens, including identification of the regulated entities— i.e., the specific categories of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities—burdened, as well as the compliance costs and implementation challenges experienced by those entities; (3) potential amendments including rescission to those regulatory provisions; (4) the incremental compliance costs and benefits (including benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs, safety harms, and environmental harms) anticipated from those amendments; and (5) the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of those potential amendments. PHMSA may also consider adopting a procedural requirement mandating periodic regulatory reviews ( e.g., on a 5- or 3-year cycle) of the provisions in the PSR. PHMSA may hold a public meeting soon to supplement or to clarify the materials received in response to this ANPRM.

With respect to incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time implementing and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain the support for any estimates it is able to provide that accompany a proposed rule, and other commenters may weigh in on the validity and accuracy of the data. Please also identify the baseline ( e.g., a particular edition of a consensus industry standard; widespread voluntary operator practice; or documentation of sample surveys and other operator level data or information) from which those incremental costs and benefits arise. When estimates are approximate or uncertain, consider using a range or specifying the distribution in other ways.

When responding to a specific question below please note the topic letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

1. Should PHMSA consider incorporating within its PSR an explicit requirement to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews at specified intervals to eliminate undue burdens and improve government efficiency? Please identify any specific regulatory language would be appropriate for that purpose. What interval would be appropriate? How should PHMSA provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement in those reviews?

2. Can PHMSA eliminate undue burdens or improve government efficiency by taking any actions with respect to its oversight of State authorities or involvement with other Federal agencies? Please identify specific actions that PHMSA should consider for this purpose.

3. What number of small businesses, small organizations, or small government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 6010 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations, operate different categories of PHMSA-jurisdictional gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline facilities? Please provide information about the nature and types of activities of small businesses and other small entities operating in midstream gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipeline sectors. Are there any existing PSR requirements that disproportionately impact small businesses or other small entities in the sector? Are there alternative regulatory approaches the agency should consider that would achieve its regulatory objectives while minimizing any significant economic impact on small businesses or other small entities?

4. Do PHMSA's regulations, implementing guidance, or practices governing special permits (49 CFR 190.341) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific amendments to regulations, guidance, or protocols meriting consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those actions.

5. Do PHMSA's compliance practices with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act place an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are there any categorical exclusions that PHMSA should adopt? If so, please identify the activities that should be considered for a categorical exclusion, as well as the technical, safety, and environmental bases for adding those categorical exclusions. Are there any categorical exclusions employed by other Federal agencies that PHMSA should adopt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336c?

6. Do annual user fees (49 U.S.C. 60301 et seq. ) and charges ( e.g., cost recovery pipeline facility design and construction reviews pursuant to 49 CFR part 190, subpart E) imposed by PHMSA place an undue burden on affected stakeholders? If so, please identify specific fees, the regulated entities adversely affected by those fees, and any alternative fee structures meriting consideration.

7. Are there any interpretations (§ 190.11), approvals (§ 190.9), or special permits (§ 190.341) that should be incorporated into the PSR to eliminate undue burdens or improve government efficiency? Should PHMSA adopt a procedure in the PSR to facilitate the incorporation of similar actions in the future?

1. What provisions of the PSR either impose an undue burden on identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, or are examples of government inefficiency, insofar as they impose outsized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or limit technological innovation? Are there any PSR provisions that are unnecessary because their safety benefits that are adequately addressed by other PSR requirements?

2. Do any of the terms defined in the PSR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.

3. Are there any requirements in the PSR that impose undue burdens on owners and operators of gathering lines? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.

4. Do the reporting and notification requirements ( e.g., part 191, § 193.2011, and part 195, subpart B) in the PSR impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Are any of those reporting requirements inefficient because of their limited safety value compared to their associated costs? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.

5. Are there any consensus industry standards or recommended practices (or updated editions thereof) that should be incorporated by reference into the PSR to eliminate undue burdens or improve government efficiency? Please identify the pertinent standards and recommended practices that PHMSA should consider incorporating by reference, the specific provisions of the PSR that should be used for that purpose, and the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.

6. Are there any material, design, testing, construction, or corrosion control requirements in parts 192 (subparts B through I), 193 (subparts C through E), and 195 (subparts C through E and H) of the Pipeline Safety Regulation that impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.

7. Are there any operating and maintenance requirements in parts 192 (subparts L through M), 193 (subparts F through G), and 195 (subpart F) of the PSR that impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.

8. Are there any personnel qualification and training requirements in parts 192 (subpart N), 193 (subpart H), and 195 (subpart G) of the PSR that impose undue burdens on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.

9. Do any of the integrity management requirements in part 192 (subparts O and P) or 195 (§§ 195.450 through 452) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.

10. Do any of the siting requirements for LNG facilities in 49 CFR part 193, subpart B, impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.

11. Do any of the drug and alcohol testing requirements in part 199 (which incorporates by reference Departmental requirements at 49 CFR part 40) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, after a council's transmittal of an FMP amendment, immediately publish a document in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This document announces that proposed amendment 125 to the BSAI FMP is available for public review and comment.

NMFS manages the Pacific cod fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the BSAI under the BSAI FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the BSAI FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

The BSAI FMP and implementing regulations require that, after consultation with the Council, NMFS specify an overfishing limit (OFL), an acceptable biological catch (ABC), and a total allowable catch (TAC) amount for each target species or species group of groundfish, including Pacific cod, on an annual basis. An OFL is the catch level above which overfishing would occur for a species or species group. An ABC is the level of a species or species group annual catch that accounts for the scientific uncertainty in the estimate of OFL and any other scientific uncertainty. The TAC is the annual catch target for a species or species group, derived from the ABC by considering social and economic factors and management uncertainty. Under the BSAI FMP, an ABC is set below its respective OFL. Under the BSAI FMP, the TAC must be set lower than or equal to the ABC.

Pacific cod is assessed as two distinct stocks with a separate OFL, ABC, and TAC for each stock: the eastern Bering Sea (BS) stock and Aleutian Islands (AI) stock. To allocate Pacific cod TACs, NMFS first allocates 10.7 percent of the BS TAC and the AI TAC to the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program (§ 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A)). After CDQ allocations have been deducted from the respective BS and AI Pacific cod TACs, the remaining BS and AI Pacific cod TACs are combined for calculating BSAI Pacific cod sector allocations for nine distinct non-CDQ sectors (§ 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)). In addition, during a fishing year, NMFS may reallocate unharvested Pacific cod among sectors, consistent with the reallocation hierarchy set forth in regulations (§ 679.20(a)(7)(iii)).

The BSAI Pacific cod jig sector allocation has not historically been fully utilized, particularly in the A and C seasons. On average, from 2008 through 2021, 95 percent of the BSAI Pacific cod jig sector's initial allocation has been reallocated to the less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA hook-and-line or pot CV sector.

In October 2022, the Council recommended amendment 125 to the BSAI FMP. Amendment 125 would revise Section 4.1.2.2 of the BSAI FMP to modify the BSAI Pacific cod jig sector to allow catch from CVs less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA that use hook-and-line or pot gear to accrue to the jig sector during the jig-gear A season (January 1 through April 30). This would allow smaller CVs (less than or equal to 55 ft (16.8 m) LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear to harvest the Pacific cod jig allocation at the start of the year. The Council considered the increasing competition in the less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA hook-and-line or pot CV sector. Based on this and a review of the scientific information and consideration of the National Standard guidelines, the Council recommended amendment 125 to increase stability and additional opportunities for smaller fishery participants and potential new entrants with smaller CVs without negatively impacting vessels using jig gear. This is because the jig gear sector does not fully use its A-season allocation and has had very low overall participation in recent years. NMFS reviewed the scientific information and National Standards and has preliminarily determined that it supported the Council's basis for the recommendation (see Section 4.3 of the Analysis), subject to further consideration after public comment. This action would not change the allocation, percentages, or affect any other sector allocation established under amendment 85 (72 FR 50788, September 4, 2007).

NMFS is soliciting public comments on the proposed amendment 125 through the end of the comment period (see DATES ). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement amendment 125, following NMFS's evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Respondents do not need to submit the same comments on amendment 125 and the proposed rule. All relevant written comments received by the end of the applicable comment period, whether specifically directed to the BSAI FMP amendment or the proposed rule will be considered by NMFS in the approval/disapproval decision for amendment 125 and addressed in the response to comments in the final decision. Comments received after the end of the applicable comment period will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on amendment 125. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period (see DATES ).