Federal Register Vol. 83, No.47,

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), has issued a final rule to streamline, revise, and update the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Grant Program, to minimize the burden of applying for and awarding grants (82 FR 55923; Nov. 27, 2017). The Agency's goal is to reduce the regulatory burden on grant applicants and to ensure that grant funds are awarded for projects with the most demonstrable need.

RUS invited comments regarding the new procedures for implementing the DLT Grant Program and received comments from: The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; Herzing University; and Ms. Kayla Boylen. These comments and the Agency's responses are summarized as follows:

Comment: Respondents commented that they were in support of the Program and that the Program is needed in rural America.

Comment: One respondent commented that they were in support of adding broadband facilities as an eligible project, however, there was concern that twenty percent of the requested grant amount for this purpose was not sufficient.

Response: It should be noted that the DLT Program is not intended to provide residential/business broadband service. RUS has other loan and grant programs for this purpose. Broadband facilities have been added to the DLT program to ensure that rural schools and medical facilities that currently do not have broadband service have a means to bring distance learning and telemedicine to those facilities. All broadband facilities funded under this program must be used to deliver distance learning and telemedicine.

Comment: One respondent commented that due to the economic nature of areas eligible for the DLT Program that there should be no matching funds requirement.

Response: For projects to become successful, it is imperative that all parties involved are both financially and non-financially vested, and that the success of the project is not dependent entirely on the grant funding. Additionally, a matching fund component also allows RUS to leverage the limited grant funding received and to fund more projects. A fifteen percent matching fund requirement is a reasonable amount and demonstrates the sincerity of the applicant to make the proposed project a success.

Comment: One commenter suggested that outreach efforts be improved to better communicate the changes to the application scoring criteria as well as the program's eligibility requirements.

Response: RUS has and continues to be mindful of communicating timely information about its programs. The Agency plans to introduce a series of webinars which will address all of the recent changes to the Program as well as other program requirements, criteria, and issues. The webinars will be scheduled on different days and times to accommodate the varying schedules of potential applicants across the country.

The Agency appreciates the interest of the commenters and thanks them for their comment submissions.

On December 26, 2017, the Federal Election Commission published a Final Rule (82 FR 60852) announcing its official relocation in 2018 to a new street address, and amending its regulations to reflect the change in location. The Final Rule stated that the Commission would relocate on March 5, 2018 to its new street address: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463. The Commission's relocation has since been delayed, however, and the Commission will now relocate to its new street address on March 19, 2018. Until March 19, 2018, the Commission will continue to reside and receive mail at 999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463.

The Commission is promulgating these amendments without advance notice or an opportunity for comment because they fall under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Commission finds that notice and comment are unnecessary here because these amendments are merely technical; they effect no substantive changes to any rule. For the same reason, these amendments fall within the “good cause” exception to the delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 808(2). Moreover, because these amendments are exempt from the notice and comment procedure of the Administrative Procedure Act under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Commission is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a). Nor is the Commission required to submit these amendments for congressional review under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, as amended, or the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, as amended. See 52 U.S.C. 30111(d)(1), (4) (providing for congressional review when Commission “prescribe[s]” a “rule of law”); 26 U.S.C. 9009(c)(1), (4), 9039(c)(1), (4) (same).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission amends 11 CFR chapter I as follows:

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0038, dated February 7, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-214, -251N, and -271N airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0164.

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A26N003-16, Revision 01, dated June 12, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection for any damaged bolt and nut in each cargo fire extinguishing bottle installation, and replacement of all damaged bolts and nuts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of the possibility of loss of the fire protection system in the lower deck cargo compartment. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0164; Product Identifier 2018-NM-026-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Emergency AD No. 2017-0232-E, dated November 21, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, and AS 332 L1 helicopters. The EASA AD was prompted by the in-flight failure of a pin in a hinge attaching the T/R. EASA advises that damage to the hinge on a T/R blade was reported and that an investigation is ongoing to determine the root cause of the damage. EASA further advises that this condition could lead to failure of the hinge, unbalance of the T/R, and detachment of the T/R gearbox and hub with subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. To correct this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of the flapping hinges, and depending on the findings, corrective actions. It also requires reporting the findings and sending any cracked components to Airbus Helicopters to support the investigation.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 64.00.43, Revision 0, dated November 21, 2017, for Model AS332-series helicopters. This service information describes procedures for visually and dye penetrant inspecting the hinges of all five T/Rs.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This AD requires, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS):

• Performing a tactile inspection of each hinge for friction points;

• Measuring for play in the drag plane;

• Measuring the tightening torque of each spindle bolt.

○ If the tightening torque is not within the minimum and maximum torque, dye-penetrant inspecting the spindle bolt for a crack and removing the spindle bolt and hexagonal castellated nut from service;

○ If the tightening torque is within the minimum and maximum torque, inspecting the spindle bolt for corrosion and fretting.

• Inspecting the bearing race inner ring and bearing needles for spalling and replacing the bearing race if there is any spalling;

• Measuring the thickness of each stop washer and removing the stop washer from service if the thickness is less than 1.5 mm (.060 inch); and

• Inspecting the inner ring for brinelling.

○ If there is brinelling deeper than 0.1 mm (.004 inch), repairing the hinge.

○ If there is brinelling 0.1 mm (.004 inch) or less, dye-penetrant inspecting the inner ring for a crack.

This AD also requires, within 10 days after the inspection, reporting the results of each inspection and measurement to Airbus Helicopters.

The EASA AD requires compliance within 25 hours TIS or at the next 50 hour inspection of the T/R, whichever is later; this AD requires compliance within 25 hours TIS. The EASA AD requires returning parts to Airbus Helicopters, and this AD does not.

We considered this AD interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable Airbus Helicopters to obtain better insight into the cause of the damaged flapping hinge link, and eventually develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

We estimate that this AD affects 20 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting 5 T/R hinges will require 8 hours, and required materials cost would be minimal, for a cost per helicopter of $680 and a cost of $13,600 to the U.S. fleet. Reporting the inspection findings would require about 30 minutes, for a cost per helicopter of $43 and a cost of $860 to the U.S. fleet. If required, dye-penetrant inspecting the spindle bolt or inner ring would require about 1 hour, and required materials cost would be minimal, for a cost per helicopter of $85. If required, replacing a spindle bolt would require about 1 hour, and required parts would cost $625, for a cost per helicopter of $710.

If required, replacing the bearing race would require about 1 hour, and required parts would cost $585, for a cost per helicopter of $670.

If required, replacing the inner ring would require about 1 hour, and required parts would cost $1,986, for a cost per helicopter of $2,071.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting required by this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the inspections required by this AD must be accomplished within 25 hours TIS, a relatively short period of time for these helicopters as they are primarily used for offshore operations. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable.

In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

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

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 1, 2018 (83 FR 4580), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a document placing seven fentanyl-related substances temporarily in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. These seven substances are: N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylpentanamide (valeryl fentanyl), N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)butyramide (para-fluorobutyryl fentanyl), N-(4-methoxyphenyl)-N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)butyramide (para-methoxybutyryl fentanyl), N-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)isobutyramide (para-chloroisobutyryl fentanyl), N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylisobutyramide (isobutyryl fentanyl), N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylcyclopentanecarboxamide (cyclopentyl fentanyl), and N-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-methoxy-N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)acetamide (ocfentanil). The document assigned incorrect drug codes to valeryl fentanyl and ocfentanil. This document corrects the drug codes for those two substances.

For the reasons set out above, the DEA corrects 21 CFR part 1308 by making the following correcting amendments:

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 Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard was not notified of the event with sufficient time to publish a NPRM prior to the event. The Coast Guard received information regarding the need for a safety zone for the event on January 10, 2018. The event would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the race involved in this event, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of race participants, spectators, and other vessels navigating the surrounding waterways. Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM and holding a comment period would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of race participants, spectators, and vessels in the surrounding waterways. For those reasons, it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons discussed above.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port St. Petersburg has determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect race participants, spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with race events. The rule is necessary to ensure the safety of life vessels and persons in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg, Florida.

This rule establishes a safety zone from March 7, 2018 through March 11, 2018, which will be enforced daily from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a specified area of Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of the public and these navigable waters during the race event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for a limited period of time over the course of four days during the Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg, Florida race events; (2) although persons and vessels are prohibited to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 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 rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

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

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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area during a four day high speed grand prix race event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

Applicability Dates

October 3, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 358 (MC2017-204 and CP2017-312); October 3, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 359 (MC2017-205 and CP2017-313); October 3, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 360 (MC2017-206 and CP2017-314); October 5, 2017, Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller 1 (MC2017-170 and CP2017-268); October 5, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 361 (MC2017-207 and CP2017-315); October 5, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 362 (MC2017-208 and CP2017-316); October 5, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 363 (MC2017-209 and CP2017-317); October 5, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 364 (MC2017-210 and CP2017-318); October 6, 2017, Parcel Select Contract 23 (MC2017-211 and CP2017-319); October 6, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 82 (MC2017-212 and CP2017-320); October 11, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 365 (MC2017-213 and CP2017-321); October 11, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 58 (MC2017-214 and CP2017-322); October 12, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 83 (MC2018-1 and CP2018-1); October 12, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 84 (MC2018-2 and CP2018-2); October 18, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 367 (MC2018-4 and CP2018-6); October 19, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 368 (MC2018-5 and CP2018-7); October 25, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 370 (MC2018-9 and CP2018-16); October 25, 2017, Priority Mail Express Contract 51 (MC2018-10 and CP2018-17); October 25, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 59 (MC2018-11 and CP2018-18); October 25, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 60 (MC2018-12 and CP2018-19); October 31, 2017, Global Plus 1E (MC2018-7 and CP2018-12); October 31, 2017, Parcel Select Contract 24 (MC2018-13 and CP2018-26); November 1, 2017, Global Expedited Package Services 9 (MC2018-6 and CP2018-11); November 2, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 369 (MC2018-8 and CP2018-15); November 3, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 61 (MC2018-14 and CP2018-30); November 3, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 371 (MC2018-15 and CP2018-31); November 3, 2017, Priority Mail Express Contract 52 (MC2018-16 and CP2018-32); November 3, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 (MC2018-17 and CP2018-33); November 9, 2017, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 52 (MC2018-18 and CP2018-40); November 9, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 24 (MC2018-19 and CP2018-41); November 15, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 (MC2018-20 and CP2018-42); November 15, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 372 (MC2018-21 and CP2018-43); November 21, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 373 (MC2018-22 and CP2018-44); November 21, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 374 (MC2018-23 and CP2018-45); November 21, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 26 (MC2018-24 and CP2018-46); November 29, 2017, Priority Mail Express Contract 53 (MC2018-25 and CP2018-51); November 29, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 375 (MC2018-26 and CP2018-52); November 29, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 376 (MC2018-27 and CP2018-53); November 29, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 62 (MC2018-28 and CP2018-54); November 30, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 27 (MC2018-29 and CP2018-58); December 1, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 28 (MC2018-30 and CP2018-60); December 1, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 85 (MC2018-31 and CP2018-61); December 5, 2017, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 53 (MC2018-33 and CP2018-63); December 5, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 377 (MC2018-32 and CP2018-62); December 7, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 378 (MC2018-34 and CP2018-64); December 8, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 379 (MC2018-36 and CP2018-66); December 8, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2018-37 and CP2018-67); December 12, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 380 (MC2018-38 and CP2018-68); December 12, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 29 (MC2018-39 and CP2018-69); December 12, 2017, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 (MC2018-40 and CP2018-70); December 12, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 381 (MC2018-41 and CP2018-71); December 14, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 382 (MC2018-42 and CP2018-72); December 14, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 383 (MC2018-43 and CP2018-73); December 15, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 384 (MC2018-45 and CP2018-75); December 15, 2017, Priority Mail Express Contract 54 (MC2018-46 and CP2018-76); December 15, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 385 (MC2018-47 and CP2018-77); December 15, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 64 (MC2018-48 and CP2018-78); December 15, 2017, Parcel Select Contract 25 (MC2018-35 and CP2018-65); December 15, 2017, Parcel Select Contract 26 (MC2018-44 and CP2018-74); December 19, 2017, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 54 (MC2018-49 and CP2018-80); December 19, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 386 (MC2018-50 and CP2018-81); December 19, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 86 (MC2018-51 and CP2018-82); December 19, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 387 (MC2018-52 and CP2018-83); December 26, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 388 (MC2018-53 and CP2018-86); December 26, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 389 (MC2018-54 and CP2018-87); December 26, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 390 (MC2018-55 and CP2018-91); December 26, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 391 (MC2018-56 and CP2018-92); December 27, 2017, Priority Mail Express Contract 55 (MC2018-57 and CP2018-94); December 27, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 392 (MC2018-58 and CP2018-95); December 28, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 87 (MC2018-59 and CP2018-98); December 28, 2017, First-Class Package Service Contract 88 (MC2018-60 and CP2018-100); December 28, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 65 (MC2018-61 and CP2018-101); December 29, 2017, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 66 (MC2018-62 and CP2018-102); December 29, 2017, Priority Mail Express Contract 56 (MC2018-63 and CP2018-103); December 29, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 393 (MC2018-64 and CP2018-104); December 29, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 394 (MC2018-65 and CP2018-105); December 29, 2017, Priority Mail Contract 395 (MC2018-66 and CP2018-106).

This document identifies updates to the competitive product list, which appears as 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List. Publication of the updated product list in the Federal Register is addressed in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006.

Authorization. The Commission process for periodic publication of updates was established in Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36, Order No. 445, April 22, 2010, at 8.

Changes. The competitive product list is being updated by publishing a replacement in its entirety of 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List. The following products are being added, removed, or moved within the competitive product list:

1. Priority Mail Contract 358 (MC2017-204 and CP2017-312) (Order No. 4138), added October 3, 2017.

2. Priority Mail Contract 359 (MC2017-205 and CP2017-313) (Order No. 4139), added October 3, 2017.

3. Priority Mail Contract 360 (MC2017-206 and CP2017-314) (Order No. 4140), added October 3, 2017.

4. Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller 1 (MC2017-170 and CP2017-268) (Order No. 4143), added October 5, 2017.

5. Priority Mail Contract 361 (MC2017-207 and CP2017-315) (Order No. 4144), added October 5, 2017.

6. Priority Mail Contract 362 (MC2017-208 and CP2017-316) (Order No. 4145), added October 5, 2017.

7. Priority Mail Contract 363 (MC2017-209 and CP2017-317) (Order No. 4146), added October 5, 2017.

8. Priority Mail Contract 364 (MC2017-210 and CP2017-318) (Order No. 4147), added October 5, 2017.

9. Parcel Select Contract 23 (MC2017-211 and CP2017-319) (Order No. 4149), added October 6, 2017.

10. First-Class Package Service Contract 82 (MC2017-212 and CP2017-320) (Order No. 4150), added October 6, 2017.

11. Priority Mail Contract 365 (MC2017-213 and CP2017-321) (Order No. 4155), added October 11, 2017.

12. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 58 (MC2017-214 and CP2017-322) (Order No. 4156), added October 11, 2017.

13. First-Class Package Service Contract 83 (MC2018-1 and CP2018-1) (Order No. 4159), added October 12, 2017.

14. First-Class Package Service Contract 84 (MC2018-2 and CP2018-2) (Order No. 4160), added October 12, 2017.

15. Priority Mail Contract 367 (MC2018-4 and CP2018-6) (Order No. 4168), added October 18, 2017.

16. Priority Mail Contract 368 (MC2018-5 and CP2018-7) (Order No. 4169), added October 19, 2017.

17. Priority Mail Contract 370 (MC2018-9 and CP2018-16) (Order No. 4180), added October 25, 2017.

18. Priority Mail Express Contract 51 (MC2018-10 and CP2018-17) (Order No. 4181), added October 25, 2017.

19. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 59 (MC2018-11 and CP2018-18) (Order No. 4182), added October 25, 2017.

20. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 60 (MC2018-12 and CP2018-19) (Order No. 4183), added October 25, 2017.

21. Global Plus 1E (MC2018-7 and CP2018-12) (Order No. 4194), added October 31, 2017.

22. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 52 (MC2017-174 and CP2017-275) (Order No. 4083), added August 30, 2017.

23. Parcel Select Contract 24 (MC2018-13 and CP2018-26) (Order No. 4196), added October 31, 2017.

24. Global Expedited Package Services 9 (MC2018-6 and CP2018-11) (Order No. 4199), added November 1, 2017.

25. Priority Mail Contract 369 (MC2018-8 and CP2018-15) (Order No. 4201), added November 2, 2017.

26. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 61 (MC2018-14 and CP2018-30) (Order No. 4202), added November 3, 2017.

27. Priority Mail Contract 371 (MC2018-15 and CP2018-31) (Order No. 4203), added November 3, 2017.

28. Priority Mail Express Contract 52 (MC2018-16 and CP2018-32) (Order No. 4204), added November 3, 2017.

29. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 (MC2018-17 and CP2018-33) (Order No. 4205), added November 3, 2017.

30. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 52 (MC2018-18 and CP2018-40) (Order No. 4212), added November 9, 2017.

31. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 24 (MC2018-19 and CP2018-41) (Order No. 4214), added November 9, 2017.

32. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 (MC2018-20 and CP2018-42) (Order No. 4220), added November 15, 2017.

33. Priority Mail Contract 372 (MC2018-21 and CP2018-43) (Order No. 4221), added November 15, 2017.

34. Priority Mail Contract 373 (MC2018-22 and CP2018-44) (Order No. 4229), added November 21, 2017.

35. Priority Mail Contract 374 (MC2018-23 and CP2018-45) (Order No. 4230), added November 21, 2017.

36. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 26 (MC2018-24 and CP2018-46) (Order No. 4231), added November 21, 2017.

37. Priority Mail Express Contract 53 (MC2018-25 and CP2018-51) (Order No. 4243), added November 29, 2017.

38. Priority Mail Contract 375 (MC2018-26 and CP2018-52) (Order No. 4244), added November 29, 2017.

39. Priority Mail Contract 376 (MC2018-27 and CP2018-53) (Order No. 4245), added November 29, 2017.

40. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 62 (MC2018-28 and CP2018-54) (Order No. 4246), added November 29, 2017.

41. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 27 (MC2018-29 and CP2018-58) (Order No. 4254), added November 30, 2017.

42. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 28 (MC2018-30 and CP2018-60) (Order No. 4261), added December 1, 2017.

43. First-Class Package Service Contract 85 (MC2018-31 and CP2018-61) (Order No. 4262), added December 1, 2017.

44. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 53 (MC2018-33 and CP2018-63) (Order No. 4265), added December 5, 2017.

45. Priority Mail Contract 377 (MC2018-32 and CP2018-62) (Order No. 4266), added December 5, 2017.

46. Priority Mail Contract 378 (MC2018-34 and CP2018-64) (Order No. 4268), added December 7, 2017.

47. Priority Mail Contract 379 (MC2018-36 and CP2018-66) (Order No. 4269), added December 8, 2017.

48. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2018-37 and CP2018-67) (Order No. 4270), added December 8, 2017.

49. Priority Mail Contract 380 (MC2018-38 and CP2018-68) (Order No. 4271), added December 12, 2017.

50. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 29 (MC2018-39 and CP2018-69) (Order No. 4272), added December 12, 2017.

51. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 (MC2018-40 and CP2018-70) (Order No. 4273), added December 12, 2017.

52. Priority Mail Contract 381 (MC2018-41 and CP2018-71) (Order No. 4274), added December 12, 2017.

53. Priority Mail Contract 382 (MC2018-42 and CP2018-72) (Order No. 4276), added December 14, 2017.

54. Priority Mail Contract 383 (MC2018-43 and CP2018-73) (Order No. 4277), added December 14, 2017.

55. Priority Mail Contract 384 (MC2018-45 and CP2018-75) (Order No. 4279), added December 15, 2017.

56. Priority Mail Express Contract 54 (MC2018-46 and CP2018-76) (Order No. 4280), added December 15, 2017.

57. Priority Mail Contract 385 (MC2018-47 and CP2018-77) (Order No. 4281), added December 15, 2017.

58. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 64 (MC2018-48 and CP2018-78) (Order No. 4282), added December 15, 2017.

59. Parcel Select Contract 25 (MC2018-35 and CP2018-65) (Order No. 4283), added December 15, 2017.

60. Parcel Select Contract 26 (MC2018-44 and CP2018-74) (Order No. 4284), added December 15, 2017.

61. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 54 (MC2018-49 and CP2018-80) (Order No. 4287), added December 19, 2017.

62. Priority Mail Contract 386 (MC2018-50 and CP2018-81) (Order No. 4288), added December 19, 2017.

63. First-Class Package Service Contract 86 (MC2018-51 and CP2018-82) (Order No. 4289), added December 19, 2017.

64. Priority Mail Contract 387 (MC2018-52 and CP2018-83) (Order No. 4290), added December 19, 2017.

65. Priority Mail Contract 388 (MC2018-53 and CP2018-86) (Order No. 4299), added December 26, 2017.

66. Priority Mail Contract 389 (MC2018-54 and CP2018-87) (Order No. 4300), added December 26, 2017.

67. Priority Mail Contract 390 (MC2018-55 and CP2018-91) (Order No. 4301), added December 26, 2017.

68. Priority Mail Contract 391 (MC2018-56 and CP2018-92) (Order No. 4302), added December 26, 2017.

69. Priority Mail Express Contract 55 (MC2018-57 and CP2018-94) (Order No. 4306), added December 27, 2017.

70. Priority Mail Contract 392 (MC2018-58 and CP2018-95) (Order No. 4307), added December 27, 2017.

71. First-Class Package Service Contract 88 (MC2018-60 and CP2018-100) (Order No. 4316), added December 28, 2017.

72. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 65 (MC2018-61 and CP2018-101) (Order No. 4317), added December 28, 2017.

73. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 66 (MC2018-62 and CP2018-102) (Order No. 4318), added December 29, 2017.

74. Priority Mail Express Contract 56 (MC2018-63 and CP2018-103) (Order No. 4319), added December 29, 2017.

75. Priority Mail Contract 393 (MC2018-64 and CP2018-104) (Order No. 4320), added December 29, 2017.

76. Priority Mail Contract 394 (MC2018-65 and CP2018-105) (Order No. 4321), added December 29, 2017.

77. Priority Mail Contract 395 (MC2018-66 and CP2018-106) (Order No. 4322), added December 29, 2017.

The following negotiated service agreements have expired, or have been terminated early, and are being deleted from the Competitive Product List:

1. Priority Mail Express Contract 19 (MC2014-41 and CP2014-74) (Order No. 2178).

2. Priority Mail Express Contract 21 (MC2015-14 and CP2015-17) (Order No. 2284).

3. Priority Mail Contract 82 (MC2014-29 and CP2014-54) (Order No. 2119).

4. Priority Mail Contract 87 (MC2014-36 and CP2014-62) (Order No. 2142).

5. Priority Mail Contract 92 (MC2014-46 and CP2014-82) (Order No. 2202).

6. Priority Mail Contract 95 (MC2014-49 and CP2014-85) (Order No. 2210).

7. Priority Mail Contract 96 (MC2015-4 and CP2015-5) (Order No. 2245).

8. Priority Mail Contract 104 (MC2015-19 and CP2015-23) (Order No. 2302).

9. Priority Mail Contract 241 (MC2016-202 and CP2016-291) (Order No. 3551).

10. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 10 (MC2012-54 and CP2012-66) (Order No. 1499).

11. First-Class Package Service Contract 37 (MC2014-42 and CP2014-75) (Order No. 2179).

12. First-Class Package Service Contract 70 (MC2017-55 and CP2017-81) (Order No. 3705).

Updated product list. The referenced changes to the competitive product list is incorporated into 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

Entities potentially affected directly by this final rule include state, local and tribal governments and air pollution control agencies (air agencies) responsible for attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Entities potentially affected indirectly by this proposed rule as regulated sources include owners and operators of sources of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that contribute to ground-level ozone formation.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this Federal Register document will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution.

The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

On October 1, 2015,1 the EPA promulgated a rule that revised the primary and secondary 8-hour NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 parts per million (ppm).2 3 Revisions to the ozone NAAQS trigger a process set forth in section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), in which states recommend area designations (i.e., as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable with respect to the revised standards) to the EPA, and the EPA then evaluates air quality data and other factors prior to making final area designations. In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(1), an area designated as nonattainment for a revised ozone NAAQS must be classified, at the time of designation, as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe or Extreme, depending on the severity of the ozone air quality problem in that nonattainment area.

On November 17, 2016, the EPA proposed a set of nonattainment area classification thresholds and associated attainment dates, as well as other NAAQS implementation-related provisions including submittal deadlines and specific CAA requirements for the content of nonattainment area and Ozone Transport Region state implementation plans (SIPs), for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 81276). With this action, we are finalizing the set of nonattainment area classification thresholds and associated attainment dates, which will apply when the EPA promulgates final nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.4 The public comment period on the November 17, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (November 2016 proposal) ran from November 17, 2016, to February 13, 2017. The EPA received approximately 80 comment submissions on the NPRM, approximately 20 of which addressed the EPA's proposed nonattainment area classifications approach. The preamble to this final classifications rule for the 2015 ozone NAAQS discusses the comments received and how they were considered by the EPA in general terms. The Response to Comments document provides more detailed responses to the comments received. The public comments received on the NPRM and the EPA's Response to Comment document are posted in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0202).

We are taking two actions in this final rule: (1) Establishing the air quality thresholds that define each of the five CAA classifications for areas designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS; and (2) establishing the attainment deadline associated with each classification. The EPA also proposed in the November 2016 proposal to apply previous voluntary reclassifications for six areas in California to the revised 2015 ozone NAAQS. Consistent with California's most recent request, EPA intends to finalize these voluntary reclassifications for five areas separately with its final nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

On November 17, 2016, the EPA proposed numerical ozone air quality thresholds for classifying nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 81283). In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(1), each area designated as nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS must be classified at the time of designation. Accordingly, the EPA is finalizing classification thresholds on or before the date that it issues final nonattainment area designations.

Under Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA, state planning and emissions control requirements for ozone are determined, in part, by a nonattainment area's classification. Under subpart 2, ozone nonattainment areas are initially classified based on the severity of their ozone levels, as determined by the area's design value (DV),5 relative to the lower and upper DV thresholds for each classification. Nonattainment areas with a “lower” classification have ozone levels at the time of designation that are closer to the standard than areas with a “higher” classification. Ozone nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer initial mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in higher classifications. Clean Air Act section 181 provides an increasing amount of maximum time from the date of designation to attain the standards for the progressively higher classifications: Marginal—3 years, Moderate—6 years, Serious—9 years, Severe—15 or 17 years, and Extreme—20 years.

The CAA provides mechanisms for addressing nonattainment areas that may not be able to attain by the attainment date for their classification, or that fail to attain by that date. CAA section 181(a)(4) provides that within 90 days of designation and classification, the Administrator may exercise discretion to reclassify an area to a higher (or lower) classification if its DV is within 5 percent of the DV range of the higher (or lower) classification. An air agency may also voluntarily request, pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3), that the EPA reclassify the area to a higher classification. The EPA may not deny and must approve any such voluntary reclassification requests. Once an area is reclassified to a higher classification, it becomes subject to the associated additional planning and control requirements for that higher classification, and must attain the standard no later than the maximum attainment date for that classification. Six nonattainment areas in California were granted voluntary reclassifications for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30165; May 21, 2012), which we proposed in the November 2016 proposal to apply for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Finally, if the EPA determines that an area has failed to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date, CAA section 181(b)(2) requires EPA to reclassify that area to a higher classification (i.e., “bump-up”).

For purposes of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed to retain the “percent-above-the-standard” (PATS) methodology used to establish area classification thresholds for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (81 FR 81283; November 17, 2016). As the EPA explained in our proposal, the PATS approach is rooted in the classification thresholds established for the ozone standard in effect at the time of the 1990 CAA amendments, which was a 1-hour exceedance-based standard of 0.12 ppm.6 The classification provisions in Table 1 in section 181 of subpart 2 of the CAA (also referred to herein as the “CAA Table 1”) are specific to that 1-hour standard. The EPA subsequently translated the CAA Table 1 thresholds for purposes of the revised 1997 ozone NAAQS, which were expressed in the form of a 3-year average of annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour averages.7 Specifically, in the classifications rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, we translated the classification thresholds in CAA Table 1 from 1-hour DVs to 8-hour DVs based on the percentage by which each classification threshold in the table exceeds the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., percent-above-the-standard, or PATS).8 Application of the PATS classification approach for 8-hour ozone NAAQS was challenged in litigation and upheld by the Court. See South Coast Air Quality Management District v. Environmental Protection Agency, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) at 896-898. The EPA subsequently retained the PATS approach in its final classifications rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.9

The EPA also proposed to retain its current approach in establishing attainment dates for each nonattainment area classification, consistent with CAA Table 1 and the regulatory approach for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 81285; November 17, 2016). We proposed that the maximum attainment dates for nonattainment areas in each classification under the 2015 NAAQS are as follows: Marginal—3 years from effective date of designation; Moderate—6 years from effective date of designation; Serious—9 years from effective date of designation; Severe—15 years (or 17 years) from effective date of designation; and Extreme—20 years from effective date of designation.

Finally, the EPA proposed to again apply previous voluntary reclassifications for potential nonattainment areas in California to the revised 2015 ozone NAAQS unless the state of California explicitly requested otherwise in their comments to the November 2016 proposal (81 FR 81285).10 These areas included Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, San Joaquin Valley, Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, Ventura County and Western Mojave areas. We believe this is an appropriate mechanism to address the situation for these California areas that were voluntarily reclassified for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and previously used this mechanism for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to ensure the areas would have an attainment date for the revised 2015 ozone NAAQS that is no earlier than the area's attainment date for the prior 2008 NAAQS. The EPA proposed this approach in order to minimize burden on the state of California and obviate the need to go through the voluntary reclassification process again.

The EPA received approximately 20 comment submissions on its proposed approach for establishing nonattainment area classification thresholds for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. A majority (approximately two-thirds) of the commenters supported adoption of the proposed PATS approach, stating that it was consistent with the CAA as well as the method used for classifying nonattainment areas under the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, and has been upheld in litigation. The other one-third of comments suggested that EPA adopt a different classification approach, as addressed more fully below and in the separate Response to Comments document that is available in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA received no significant comments regarding its proposed approach in establishing attainment dates for each nonattainment area classification under the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the proposed PATS approach classifies too many areas as Marginal nonattainment areas, and that some of those Marginal areas are unlikely to attain the standard within the 3 years provided by the Act. Commenters pointed out that the EPA's application of the PATS approach to classifications for the 2008 ozone NAAQS resulted in more than half of all Marginal areas failing to achieve timely attainment of that NAAQS by the end of the 2014 ozone season. Because the CAA does not require states with areas classified as Marginal to develop attainment plans or adopt additional controls, commenters argue that states will not impose emission reductions necessary to timely achieve attainment and moreover that some of these Marginal areas contribute pollution to downwind areas that have historically struggled with attaining the NAAQS due to transported pollution. These commenters advocated alternative classification approaches, such as those considered by the EPA for the prior 2008 ozone NAAQS, that would adjust thresholds to classify more areas as Moderate than the proposed PATS approach. They argue that modifying the EPA's proposed classification approach with the result of increasing the number of Moderate areas would impose needed emissions control requirements, provide a longer, more realistic timeframe to attain the ozone NAAQS, and would equitably require upwind areas that contribute to downwind transport to implement new control measures sooner.

Response: The EPA recognizes that the nonattainment area classification thresholds established in this action would likely result in the vast majority of nonattainment areas being initially classified Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, subjecting states associated with these areas to fewer mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than would apply in higher classifications. However, as the commenters acknowledge, the PATS approach has “a degree of consistency with Congressional intent” and has withstood judicial review. The EPA previously considered a number of alternative approaches in establishing nonattainment area classification thresholds for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and commenters suggested that we reexamine those approaches and consider adopting one here, or adopt an entirely new alternative approach.11 We rejected the alternative approaches discussed in the Background Information Document that accompanied the classifications rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because we determined that the alternative approaches would introduce more judgment and uncertainty in the threshold determination process than contemplated by the CAA, and, thus, posed heightened legal risk. We believe the same considerations apply to classifications for areas designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As discussed in the November 2016 proposal, the EPA utilized the PATS approach for classifying areas under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, in large part, for its straightforward translation of the classification thresholds established by Congress in CAA Table 1 (81 FR 81283). As noted by commenters, the EPA's original PATS classification approach for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS was challenged in litigation and upheld by the Court. See South Coast Air Quality Management District v. Environmental Protection Agency, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) at 896-898. For these reasons, and despite concerns raised by commenters, the EPA is finalizing the PATS approach for classifications of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Furthermore, the EPA disagrees that implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS was not in keeping with Congress' design simply because many Marginal areas did not attain by their initial attainment deadline. Commenters point out that more than half of all areas originally classified as Marginal did not timely attain, but in fact more than half of all Marginal areas did attain by their attainment date, when attainment date extensions are included in the analysis. Of the 36 areas originally classified as Marginal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 17 attained by their original attainment date, and 6 additional areas attained by the extended attainment dates authorized under CAA section 181(a)(5).12 The EPA also does not agree with commenters' suggestion that the EPA should adopt a different classification scheme in order to address what they perceive as inequities in the interstate transport of ozone pollution. The statute clearly provides other mechanisms for states and the EPA to address interstate transport, and the EPA has worked in partnership with states to use those mechanisms. See, e.g., EME Homer City v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), reversed by EPA v. EME Homer City, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), remand addressed in EME Homer City v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (largely upholding the EPA's framework for addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) interstate transport obligations).

The adopted PATS approach has withstood legal challenge and, in classifying areas as Marginal, maximizes initial planning flexibility for air agencies, which the EPA does not believe thwarts Congress' intent. To the extent that states are concerned about their inability to timely meet the Marginal attainment deadlines, the CAA provides authority for them to voluntarily request a higher classification for individual areas, if needed. The docket for this final action includes a more detailed response to comments suggesting that EPA adopt an alternative approach that would have the effect of classifying more areas as Moderate.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that the EPA allow areas the option to implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS under CAA section 172 (Part D, subpart 1), which specifies the general nonattainment planning requirements for all NAAQS pollutants.13 Implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS under CAA subpart 1 could eliminate mandatory classifications and provide a potentially more flexible attainment timeline with fewer prescribed control requirements.

Response: The EPA attempted to implement a subpart 1 approach for some ozone nonattainment areas as part of a “hybrid” implementation strategy in transitioning from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) to the 1997 8-hour NAAQS (0.08 ppm), explaining that an area must be covered under CAA subpart 2 if the area's current (i.e., at the time of designation) 1-hour ozone DV was equal to or greater than 0.121 ppm, which was the lowest 1-hour DV in CAA Table 1 (69 FR 23954; April 30, 2004—the “Phase 1” Rule). In South Coast, the Court rejected the EPA's approach to placing areas solely under the nonattainment area implementation provisions of CAA subpart 1, including the EPA's use of the CAA Table 1 threshold for deciding which areas must be covered under implementation of the provisions of CAA subpart 2. 472 F.3d at 892-894. The Court concluded that such a determination must be based on the 8-hour “equivalent” to the 1-hour level specified in CAA Table 1, and ruled that the level that must be used is an 8-hour level of 0.09 ppm. Id. We concur with commenters to the November 2016 proposal that the South Coast Court left open the possibility that EPA could develop a reasonable basis to place under CAA subpart 1 all or certain areas with an 8-hour DV below 0.09 ppm. The EPA notes, however, that the South Coast Court also stated in that same decision that the CAA does not allow the requirements of CAA subpart 2 “to be stripped away” on the basis that other provisions would allow attainment to be achieved more efficiently. Id. at 894.14 We believe that the adopted PATS classification thresholds approach will continue to provide states a pathway for consistent and flexible attainment planning across successive ozone standards and, absent a more robust legal basis, we are not adopting a CAA subpart 1 option for implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

Comment: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) affirmed our proposal to apply previous voluntary reclassifications for selected nonattainment areas, with the exception of the Sacramento Metro area. As part of their comment, CARB forwarded a request from the Sacramento Air Quality Management District declining the voluntary reclassification for the Sacramento Metro area, which the District anticipated would be classified Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (see comment no. 100 in the rulemaking docket).

Response: Based on comments to the November 2016 proposal received from the state of California, the EPA also intends to apply previous voluntary reclassifications for five of the six California areas originally proposed. Table 1 presents the voluntary reclassification history for these areas across the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the anticipated initial classification and anticipated voluntary reclassification for each area under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We intend to formally apply the previous voluntary reclassifications for these California areas in a separate action, along with the final nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

It is important to note that an air agency may request a voluntary reclassification for an area under CAA section 181(b)(3) at any time. In the November 2016 proposal, the EPA encouraged any air agency that wanted a specific higher classification to apply to an area at the time of initial designation to make such a request prior to or contemporaneous with the designation process. However, an air agency that determines it would like a voluntary reclassification after an area's initial designation may request, and the Administrator must approve, a higher classification for an area for any reason in accordance with CAA section 181(b)(3).

The EPA is establishing nonattainment area classification thresholds for the 2015 ozone NAAQS using the PATS methodology applied previously to translate the CAA Table 1 thresholds for purposes of the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are also establishing maximum attainment dates for each nonattainment area classification, consistent with CAA Table 1 and the regulatory approach for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Table 2 depicts the translation for each of the CAA Table 1 thresholds and corresponding maximum attainment dates for each area classification as they would apply for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

The EPA intends to apply voluntary reclassifications for five California areas in a separate action with the final nonattainment area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, in accordance with comments received from relevant air agencies in California. The EPA is also finalizing a number of regulatory definitions needed to support the implementation of this final classifications rule.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it would not negatively affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. When promulgated, these regulations will establish classification thresholds for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These requirements are designed to protect all segments of the general population and, as such, will not adversely affect the health or safety of minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. The EPA is establishing nonattainment area classification thresholds for the 2015 ozone NAAQS so that areas may be classified at the time of designation as provided in section 181(a) of the CAA. No new information needs to be collected from the states as a result of this final classifications rule.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this rule include state, local and tribal governments and none of these governments are small governments.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, since no tribe has to develop a tribal implementation plan under these regulatory revisions. Furthermore, these regulation revisions do not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the federal government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA's OAR Handbook for Interacting with Tribal Governments, the EPA invited tribal officials to consult on the November 2016 proposal; however, we received no subsequent requests for consultation.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous populations as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The adopted regulations establish classification thresholds for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which are designed to protect all segments of the general populations. The results of our evaluation are contained in Section IV of this preamble.

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

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator” or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”

This rule implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area classifications is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). First, the rulemaking addresses the NAAQS that applies to all states and territories in the U.S. Second, the rulemaking addresses the classification of potential nonattainment areas in states across the U.S. that are located in each of the ten EPA regions, numerous federal circuits and multiple time zones. Third, the rulemaking addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the requirements of the CAA being applied to potential nonattainment areas in states across the country. Fourth, the rulemaking, by addressing issues relevant to potential nonattainment area classifications in one state, may have precedential impacts upon potential nonattainment area classifications in other states nationwide. Courts have found similar implementation rulemaking actions to be of nationwide scope and effect.15

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 8, 2018. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that are raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 109; 110; 172; 181; and 301(a)(1) of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7409; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7502; 42 U.S.C. 7511; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 51 is amended as follows:

States that have received final authorization from the EPA pursuant to Section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to the EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

Washington State's hazardous waste management program was initially approved on January 30, 1986 and became effective on January 31, 1986. As explained in Section E below, it has been revised and reauthorized numerous times since then. On January 26, 2017, the EPA received the State's most recent authorization revision application. This authorization revision application requested federal authorization for Washington's Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste, effective as of December 31, 2014, and sought to revise its federally-authorized hazardous waste management program to include Federal hazardous waste regulations promulgated through July 1, 2013.

The EPA has reviewed Washington's application to revise its authorized program and has determined that it meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, the EPA is granting Washington final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization revision application. Washington will continue to have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151)) with the exception of the non-trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also referred to as the “1873 Survey Area” or “Survey Area”) located in Tacoma, Washington (see Section J below for full description) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA, and which are not less stringent than existing requirements, take effect in authorized states before the states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Washington, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

A person in Washington subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements. Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any applicable Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not received authorization and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued requirements. Washington continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste management program for violations of this program, but the EPA retains its authority under RCRA Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:

• Conduct inspections;

• Require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

• Suspend, terminate, modify, or revoke permits;

• Abate conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment; and

• Enforce RCRA requirements and take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.

The action to approve these revisions will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Washington has requested federal authorization are already effective under State law and are not changed by the act of authorization.

The EPA received one comment during the public comment periods of this action. That commenter requested the regulations not be authorized as they add State administrative burden to a CERCLA site. However, the authorization of these regulations do not impact the State's authority to implement its rules. This authorization action allows the EPA to implement the State of Washington's rules which were adopted on December 31, 2014. This comment should have been addressed to the State prior to the adoption of their rule package. No such comment was received. The concern raised in this comment was referred to the State to be addressed. For a copy of the specific comment received, please see Docket number EPA-R10-RCRA-2017-0285 under “Comment1” at www.regulations.gov.

Washington initially received final authorization on January 30, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), to implement the State's hazardous waste management program. The EPA granted authorization for changes to Washington's program on September 22, 1987, effective on November 23, 1987 (52 FR 35556); August 17, 1990, effective October 16, 1990 (55 FR 33695); November 4, 1994, effective November 4, 1994 (59 FR 55322); February 29, 1996, effective April 29, 1996 (61 FR 7736); September 22, 1998, effective October 22, 1998 (63 FR 50531); October 12, 1999, effective January 11, 2000 (64 FR 55142); April 11, 2002, effective April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17636); April 14, 2006, effective June 13, 2006 (71 FR 19442); October 30, 2006 effective December 29, 2006 (71 FR 63253) and June 18, 2010 effective July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44144).

The EPA is authorizing revisions to Washington's authorized program described in Washington's official program revision application, submitted to the EPA on January 26, 2017 and deemed complete by the EPA on February 23, 2017. The EPA has determined that Washington's hazardous waste management program revisions as described in the January 23, 2017 State's authorization revision application satisfy the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Regulatory revisions that are less stringent than the Federal program requirements and those regulatory revisions that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are not authorized. Washington's authorized hazardous waste management program, as amended by these provisions, remains equivalent to, consistent with, and is no less stringent than the Federal RCRA program. Therefore, the EPA is authorizing the State for the following program changes as identified in Table 1 and Table 2 below.

The provisions listed in Table 1 and Table 2 are from the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and are analogous to the RCRA regulations as indicated in the Tables. The RCRA regulations that the State incorporated by reference are those as published in 40 CFR parts 260 through 265, 268, 270, and 279, as of July 1, 2013, unless otherwise noted. Table 1 identifies new State rules that the EPA is authorizing as equivalent or more stringent than the Federal program. Table 2 identifies State-initiated changes to previously authorized State provisions. (Note: In Table 2 some State provisions have no direct Federal analog but are related to particular paragraphs, sections, or parts of the Federal hazardous waste regulations.) The referenced analogous State authorities were State adopted and effective as of December 31, 2014.

Under RCRA Section 3009, the EPA may not authorize State rules that are less stringent than the Federal program. Any state rules that are less stringent do not supplant the Federal regulations. State rules that are broader in scope than the Federal program requirements are allowed but are not authorized. State rules that are equivalent to and state rules that are more stringent than the Federal program may be authorized, in which case they are enforceable by the EPA.

This Section does not discuss all the program differences, because in most instances Washington writes its own version of the Federal hazardous waste rules. Persons must consult Tables 1 and 2 in Section F for the specific State regulations that the EPA is authorizing. This Section discusses rules of particular interest where the EPA has found the State program is more stringent and will be authorized. Table 2 above indicates all the rules that the EPA determined to be more stringent than the Federal rules. The Section below also discusses an example of a rule where the State program is broader in scope and cannot be authorized. Certain portions of the Federal program are not delegable to the states because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions. The EPA does not delegate import and export functions. Under RCRA regulations found in 40 CFR part 262, the EPA will continue to implement requirements for import and export functions. However, the State rules (WAC 173-303-230) reference the EPA's import and export requirements, and the State has amended these references to include those changes promulgated in the Federal Rule on Corrections to Errors in the Code of Federal Regulations (71 FR 40254, July, 7, 2006). Additional information regarding the EPA's analysis concerning the State's rules that are more stringent and/or broader in scope than the Federal rules can be found in the docket.

States are allowed to seek authorization for state requirements that are more stringent than Federal requirements. The EPA has authority to authorize and enforce those parts of a state's program the EPA finds to be more stringent than the Federal program. This Section does not discuss each more stringent finding made by the EPA, but persons can locate such findings by consulting Table 1 in Section F and by reviewing the docket for these rules. This action authorizes the State program for each more stringent requirement.

a. Satellite Accumulation—On December 20, 1984 (49 FR 49568), the Federal Satellite Accumulation rule was promulgated. The State adopted a satellite accumulation rule in 1986 and adopted a revised rule on December 8, 1993. On December 18, 2014, the State adopted another revision to WAC 173-303-200(2) with all instances of “per waste stream” removed for consistency with the Federal rule at 40 CFR 262.34(c). The State rule has an additional provision for satellite accumulation requirements whereby the State can require additional management requirements on a case-by-case basis, which renders the State rule more stringent than the Federal rule. Additional details regarding the State's adoption of the revised satellite accumulation rule are available in the docket.

b. Academic Laboratory Generator Standards—The State's Academic Laboratories Generator Standards contain more stringent requirements than the corresponding Federal rules (73 FR 72912, December 1, 2008).

i. WAC 173-303-235(4)(a), (4)(b)(ii), (5)(a), and (5)(b)(ii), are more stringent because the State requires small quantity generators to obtain EPA/state identification numbers, whereas the Federal rules at 40 CFR 262.203(a) and (b)(2) and 40 CFR 262.204(a) and (b)(2) exempt the comparable Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs).

ii. WAC 173-303-235(4)(b) and (5)(b) are more stringent than 40 CFR 262.203(b) and 262.204(b) introductory paragraphs due to the State requirement for small quantity generators to complete the entire Washington State Dangerous Waste Site Identification form, whereas the Federal rules exempt CESQGs from filling in a site identification number.

iii. WAC 173-303-235(7)(a)(i), 235(9)(d)(i)(A) and 235(9)(d)(ii)(A) require accumulation start dates and full container dates to be attached to the containers rather than, at a minimum, be associated with them as required by 40 CFR 262.206(a)(1) and 262.208(d)(1)(i).

iv. WAC 173-303-235(14)(a)(iv) requires eligible academic entities to maintain records for five years after laboratory cleanouts rather than three years as required in 40 CFR 262.213(a)(4).

On December 12, 2010 (75 FR 79304), the Federal Academic Laboratories Generator Standards Technical Corrections rules were promulgated. The State's rules at WAC 173-303-235(15)(a)(i) and (b)(i) are more stringent than the Federal rules because they require the accumulation date to appear on the container label, whereas the Federal rules at 40 CFR 262.214(a)(1) and (b)(1) allow the information to be associated with, but not necessarily placed on, the container. Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with the State's adoption of the Federal Academic Laboratories Generator Standards are available in the docket.

c. Characteristic of Reactivity—On January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), the State received authorization for its dangerous waste identification rules including WAC 173-303-090(7) Characteristic of reactivity. On January 18, 2010 (75 FR 12989), the Federal rule at 40 CFR 261.23(a)(8) was revised to update the forbidden explosives regulation under 40 CFR 261.23 Characteristic of reactivity. The State revised the corresponding WAC 173-303-090(7)(a)(viii), but included Division 1.5 explosives (refer to the US Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Class 1 explosives chart) not included in the Federal rule. As a result, the State's rule is more stringent than the Federal rule. Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with forbidden explosives under the characteristic of reactivity rule are available in the docket.

d. Exception Reporting—On January 18, 2010 (75 FR 12989), the Federal Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications rules were promulgated. Under 40 CFR 262.42(c)(2), the 35/45/60 day timeframes for exception reporting begin the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter forwarding the hazardous waste from the designated facility to the alternate facility. The State rule at WAC 173-303-220(2)(e)(ii) is more stringent because it does not have a 60-day window for Medium Quantity Generators (equivalent to Federal Small Quantity Generators) to submit exception reports to the Washington State Department of Ecology. Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with Exception reports are available in the docket.

e. Independent Qualified Registered Professional Engineers—On December 18, 2014, the State adopted rule changes to require Independent Qualified Registered Professional Engineers (IQRPEs) to certify certain activities. The revised State rules at WAC 173-303-200(1)(b)(iv), 200(4)(a)(iv)(A)(III), 400(3)(c)(xxii)(B), 64690, 650(4)(c), 650(5)(d)(ii)(B), 665(2)(a)(i), 806(4)(d)(v), 806(4)(e)(iii)(A)(I), and 806(4)(h)(ii)(A)(I) are more stringent than corresponding Federal rules at 40 CFR 262.34(a)(1)(iv) and (g)(4)(i)(C), 265.1101(c)(3)(iii), 264.554 (IBR, 045(1)), 264.226(c), 264.227(d)(2)(ii), 264.301(a)(1), 270.17(d), 270.18(c)(1)(i), and 270.21(b)(1)(i). Additional details regarding the more stringent State provisions associated with IQRPE requirements are available in the docket.

The State has added a time limit for special wastes that are stored at transfer stations under WAC 173-303-073(2)(e)(v). The Federal rules do not regulate these special wastes which are State-only wastes and defined at WAC 173-303-040; therefore, the regulation of these wastes is broader in scope than the Federal rules. As noted above, broader in scope rules are not authorized by the EPA.

Washington will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. Permits issued by the EPA prior to authorizing Washington for these revisions will continue in force until the effective date of the State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste management permit, at which time, the EPA will modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit, or allow the existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its terms, except for those facilities located in Indian Country. The EPA will not issue new permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Washington is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Washington is not yet authorized.

Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. This is done by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart WW, for this authorization of Washington's program revisions until a later date.

The EPA's decision to authorize the Washington hazardous waste management program does not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this authorization, “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, with the exception of the non-trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also referred to as the “1873 Survey Area” or “Survey Area”) located in Tacoma, Washington. The EPA retains jurisdiction over “Indian Country”. Effective October 22, 1998 (63 FR 50531, September 22, 1998) the State of Washington was authorized to implement the State's federally-authorized hazardous waste management program on the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Indian Reservation. The authorization did not extend to trust lands within the reservation. The EPA retains its authority to implement RCRA on trust lands and over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area.

This final authorization revises the State of Washington's authorized hazardous waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This authorization complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Federal agencies must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant”, and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the E.O. The E.O. defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. The EPA has determined that this final authorization is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this final authorization does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community and only seeks to authorize the pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing, and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this authorization on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR part 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. I certify that this final authorization will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the final authorization will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This final authorization contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, the EPA has also determined that this final authorization contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, this final authorization is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.

This final authorization does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This document authorizes pre-existing State rules. Thus, E.O. 13132 does not apply to this final authorization. In the spirit of E.O. 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comment on this authorization from State and local officials.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final authorization does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O. 13175 because the EPA retains its authority over Indian Country. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not apply to this final authorization. The EPA specifically solicited comment on this authorization from tribal officials.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the E.O. has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a state program.

This final authorization is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under E.O. 12866, as discussed in detail above.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), (Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d)) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Federal agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This authorization does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA has determined that this final authorization will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This final authorization does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because this document authorizes pre-existing State rules which are equivalent to and no less stringent than existing Federal requirements.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Background

The IPHC has recommended regulations that would govern the Pacific halibut fishery in 2018, pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States of America (U.S.) for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979).

As provided by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) at 16 U.S.C. 773b, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, may accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, regulations recommended by the IPHC in accordance with the Convention (Halibut Act, Sections 773-773k). The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, accepted the 2018 IPHC regulations as provided by the Halibut Act at 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

The Halibut Act provides the Secretary of Commerce with the authority and general responsibility to carry out the requirements of the Convention and the Halibut Act. The Regional Fishery Management Councils may develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. The NPFMC has exercised this authority most notably in developing halibut management programs for three fisheries that harvest halibut in Alaska: the subsistence, sport, and commercial fisheries. The PFMC has exercised this authority by developing a catch sharing plan governing the allocation of halibut and management of sport fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.

Independent of the NPFMC and the PFMC, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority under Article I of the Convention and section 773c of the Halibut Act to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention including the governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen through regulations that are more restrictive than those adopted by the IPHC.

Subsistence and sport halibut fishery regulations for Alaska are codified at 50 CFR part 300. Commercial halibut fisheries in Alaska are subject to the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program and Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program (50 CFR part 679) regulations, and the area-specific catch sharing plans (CSPs).

The IPHC apportions catch limits for the Pacific halibut fishery among IPHC Regulatory Areas (Areas) (Figure 1): Area 2A (California, Oregon, and Washington), Area 2B (British Columbia, Canada), Area 2C (Southeast Alaska), Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska), Area 3B (Western Gulf of Alaska), and Area 4 (subdivided into 5 areas, 4A through 4E, in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands of Western Alaska).

The NPFMC implemented a CSP among commercial IFQ and CDQ halibut fisheries in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E (Area 4, Western Alaska) through rulemaking, and the Secretary of Commerce approved the plan on March 20, 1996 (61 FR 11337). The Area 4 CSP regulations were codified at 50 CFR 300.65, and were amended on March 17, 1998 (63 FR 13000). New annual regulations pertaining to the Area 4 CSP also may be implemented through IPHC action, subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State.

The NPFMC recommended and NMFS implemented through rulemaking a CSP for guided sport (charter) and commercial IFQ halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and Area 3A on January 13, 2014 (78 FR 75844, December 12, 2013). The Area 2C and 3A CSP regulations are codified at 50 CFR 300.65. The CSP defines an annual process for allocating halibut between the commercial and charter fisheries so that each sector's allocation varies in proportion to halibut abundance, specifies a public process for setting annual management measures, and authorizes limited annual leases of commercial IFQ for use in the charter fishery as guided angler fish (GAF).

The IPHC held its annual meeting in Portland, Oregon, January 22 through 26, 2018. At this meeting, the IPHC recommended a number of changes to the 2017 IPHC regulations (82 FR 12730, March 7, 2017). The Secretary of State accepted these annual management measures, including the following changes to the previous IPHC regulations for 2018:

1. New commercial halibut fishery opening and closing dates in Section 9;

2. Revisions to existing regulations in Section 18 to clarify the requirement for commercial halibut to be landed and weighed with the head attached;

3. Modifications to Section 8 and Section 12 that align IPHC regulations to recent NPFMC actions that would allow CDQ groups to lease (receive by transfer) halibut quota share (QS) in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D;

4. A minor revision to Section 29(1)(f) to clarify that halibut harvested on a charter vessel fishing trip in Area 2C or Area 3A must be retained on board the vessel on which the halibut was caught until the end of the fishing trip;

5. Addition of language to existing regulations in Section 29 that clarifies the skin-on requirement of halibut that are retained and cut into sections on board a sport fishing vessel;

6. Changes to Sections 20(1) and 20(2) to allow halibut to be taken with pot gear under specific circumstances provided in NMFS regulations;

7. Revisions to the management measures for Area 2C and Area 3A charter halibut anglers in Section 29 that close three Tuesdays to charter halibut fishing. The dates for the 2017 closures are revised to conform to specific dates in 2018; and

8. Minor revisions to standardize terminology and clarify the regulations, including a new table in Section 4 to specify the commercial, sport, and Treaty fishing catch limits for all IPHC regulatory areas.

At the January 2018 annual meeting, the IPHC did not agree, and therefore did not recommend changes to the following management measures:

1. New catch limits in any IPHC regulatory area;

2. Revised CSP allocations for charter and commercial IFQ halibut fisheries in Areas 2C and 3A;

3. Revised charter halibut management measures in Areas 2C and 3A; or

4. Revised CSP allocations for the commercial IFQ and CDQ halibut fisheries in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.

Although the United States and Canada voiced consensus at the IPHC's January 2018 annual meeting that some reduction in catch limits relative to 2017 in all Areas was appropriate, U.S. and Canadian Commissioners could not agree on specific catch limits for 2018. Therefore, the IPHC did not make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to revise the catch limits that were recommended and implemented in 2017. Because the U.S. and Canadian Commissioners could not reach agreement on the specific catch limits in each Area, the IPHC did not provide specific recommendations to revise the CSP allocations for charter and commercial IFQ halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, charter halibut management measures in Areas 2C and 3A, or the CSP allocations for the commercial IFQ and CDQ halibut fisheries in Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E.

The U.S. Commissioners recommended that NMFS undertake a separate domestic regulatory process to implement the catch limits endorsed by the U.S. Commissioners and the CSP allocations and charter management measures for 2018 that would result from their recommendation for reduced catch limits. NMFS is authorized to implement regulations under a separate rulemaking process governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters that are more restrictive than those adopted by the IPHC. Such regulations may include catch limits that are more restrictive than those shown in Section 4 of the IPHC's regulations.

Pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR 300.62, the 2018 IPHC annual management measures described herein are published in the Federal Register to provide notice of their immediate regulatory effectiveness and to inform persons subject to the regulations of their restrictions and requirements. Because NMFS publishes the regulations applicable to the entire Convention area, these regulations include some provisions relating to and affecting Canadian fishing and fisheries. NMFS may implement more restrictive regulations for the fishery for halibut or components of it; therefore, anglers are advised to check the current U.S. Federal and IPHC regulations prior to fishing.

Because the IPHC could not reach agreement and did not recommend catch limits for 2018, the catch limits adopted for 2017 are in effect for the 2018 fishing year unless superseded by an action separate from this final rule. For the 2017 fishing year, the IPHC recommended to the governments of Canada and the U.S. catch limits totaling 31,400,000 lb (14,242.80 mt). A complete description of the background and process the IPHC used to set the 2017 overall catch limit and the catch limits for individual IPHC Areas can be found in the Federal Register at (82 FR 12730, March 7, 2017). The 2017 IPHC catch limits can also be found in Section 11 of the 2017 IPHC annual management measures and Section 4 of the 2018 IPHC annual management measures. The 2017 and 2018 catch limits are summarized below in Table 1.

NMFS may implement more restrictive regulations for the fishery for halibut or components of it; therefore, anglers are advised to check the current U.S. Federal and IPHC regulations prior to fishing. If NMFS does change any of the IPHC Regulatory Area 2018 catch limits through a separate rulemaking, the breakdown described in the Table in Section 4 of the IPHC's regulations would also change.

The IPHC considers advice from the IPHC's two advisory boards when selecting opening and closing dates for the halibut fishery. The opening date for the tribal commercial fishery in Area 2A and for the commercial halibut fisheries in Areas 2B through 4E is March 24, 2018. The March 24 opening date is thirteen days later than the 2017 opening date. The IPHC took into account many factors when recommending the season start date, including but not limited to, the timing of halibut migration and spawning, and having a Saturday season opening to facilitate marketing. In addition, the majority of the fishing effort on the opening date has historically been for sablefish, whose opening date is tied to the halibut season dates, and not for halibut.

The closing date for the halibut fisheries is November 7, 2018. This date takes into account the anticipated time required to fully harvest the commercial halibut catch limits, seasonal holidays, and adequate time for IPHC staff to review the complete record of 2018 commercial catch data for use in the 2018 stock assessment process.

In the Area 2A non-treaty directed commercial fishery the IPHC recommended seven 10-hour fishing periods. Each fishing period shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on June 27, July 11, July 25, August 8, August 22, September 5, and September 19, 2018, unless the IPHC specifies otherwise. These 10-hour openings will occur until the quota is taken and the fishery is closed.

The NMFS West Coast Region published a proposed rule for changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California on January 30, 2018 (83 FR 4175), with public comments accepted through March 1, 2018. A separate final rule will be published to approve changes to the Area 2A CSP and to implement the portions of the CSP and management measures that are not implemented through the IPHC annual management measures that are published in this final rule. These measures include the sport fishery allocations and management measures for Area 2A. Once published, the final rule implementing the Area 2A CSP will be available on the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region's website at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/pacific_halibut_management.html, and under FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2017-0157 at www.regulations.gov.

In 2014, NMFS implemented a CSP for Area 2C and Area 3A. The CSP defines an annual process for allocating halibut between the charter and commercial fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A, and establishes allocations for each fishery. To allow flexibility for individual commercial and charter fishery participants, the CSP also authorizes annual transfers of commercial halibut IFQ as GAF to charter halibut permit holders for harvest in the charter fishery. Under the CSP, the IPHC recommends combined catch limits (CCLs) for the charter and commercial halibut fisheries in Area 2C and Area 3A. Each CCL includes estimates of discard mortality (wastage) for each fishery. The CSP was implemented to achieve the halibut fishery management goals of the NPFMC. More information is provided in the final rule implementing the CSP (78 FR 75844, December 12, 2013). Implementing regulations for the CSP are at 50 CFR 300.65. The Area 2C and Area 3A CSP allocation tables are located in Tables 1 through 4 of subpart E of 50 CFR part 300.

At its January 2018 annual meeting, the IPHC did not reach agreement or recommend catch limits or CSP allocations between the charter and commercial fisheries for Areas 2C and 3A for the 2018 fishing year. As a result, the Area 2C and 3A CSPs for 2017 remain in effect for 2018 until superseded by an action separate from this final rule. NMFS may implement more restrictive regulations for the fishery for halibut or components of it; therefore, anglers are advised to check the current U.S. Federal and IPHC regulations prior to fishing.

A complete description of the process for setting the 2017 Area 2C and Area 3A CSPs, and the specific details of each area plan, can be found in the Federal Register (82 FR 12730, March 7, 2017). A brief summary of the Area 2C and 3A 2017 catch limits follows here.

In 2017, the IPHC recommended a CCL of 5,250,000 lb (2,381.36 mt) for Area 2C. Following the CSP allocations in Tables 1 and 3 of subpart E of 50 CFR part 300, the charter fishery was allocated 915,000 lb (415.04 mt) of the CCL and the remainder of the CCL, 4,335,000 lb (1,966.32 mt), was allocated to the commercial fishery. Wastage in the amount of 123,000 lb (55.79 mt) was deducted from the commercial allocation to obtain the commercial catch limit of 4,212,000 lb (1,910.53 mt). These Area 2C catch limits for 2017 remain in effect until superseded. NMFS may implement more restrictive regulations for the fishery for halibut or components of it; therefore, anglers are advised to check the current U.S. Federal and IPHC regulations prior to fishing.

Also in 2017, the IPHC recommended a CCL of 10,000,000 lb (4,535.92 mt) for Area 3A. Following the CSP allocations in Tables 2 and 4 of subpart E of 50 CFR part 300, the charter fishery was allocated 1,890,000 lb (857.29 mt) of the CCL and the remainder of the CCL, 8,110,000 lb (3,678.63 mt), was allocated to the commercial fishery. Wastage in the amount of 371,000 lb (168.28 mt) was deducted from the commercial allocation to obtain the commercial catch limit of 7,739,000 lb (3,510.35 mt). These Area 3A catch limits for 2017 remain in effect until superseded by an action separate from this final rule. NMFS may implement more restrictive regulations for the fishery for halibut or components of it; therefore, anglers are advised to check the current U.S. Federal and IPHC regulations prior to fishing.

Guided (charter) recreational halibut anglers are managed under different regulations than unguided recreational halibut anglers in Areas 2C and 3A in Alaska. According to Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.61, a charter vessel angler means a person, paying or non-paying, receiving sport fishing guide services for halibut. Sport fishing guide services means assistance, for compensation or with the intent to receive compensation, to a person who is sport fishing, to take or attempt to take halibut by accompanying or physically directing the sport fisherman in sport fishing activities during any part of a charter vessel fishing trip. A charter vessel fishing trip is the time period between the first deployment of fishing gear into the water from a charter vessel by a charter vessel angler and the offloading of one or more charter vessel anglers or any halibut from that vessel. The charter fishery regulations described below apply only to charter vessel anglers receiving sport fishing guide services during a charter vessel fishing trip for halibut in Area 2C or Area 3A. These regulations do not apply to unguided recreational anglers in any regulatory area in Alaska, or guided anglers in areas other than Areas 2C and 3A.

The NPFMC formed the Charter Halibut Management Committee to provide it with recommendations for annual management measures intended to limit charter harvest to the charter catch limit while minimizing negative economic impacts to charter fishery participants in times of low halibut abundance. The committee is composed of representatives from the charter fishing industry in Areas 2C and 3A. The committee considered previously analyzed alternatives and suggested new alternative measures to be analyzed in October 2017. After reviewing an analysis of the effects of the alternative measures on estimated charter removals, the committee made recommendations for preferred management measures to the NPFMC for 2018. The NPFMC considered the recommendations of the committee, its industry advisory body, and public testimony to develop its recommendation to the IPHC, and the IPHC took action consistent with the NPFMC's recommendations. The NPFMC has used this process to select and recommend annual management measures to the IPHC since 2012.

The IPHC recognizes the role of the NPFMC to develop policy and regulations that allocate the Pacific halibut resource among fishermen in and off Alaska, and that NMFS has developed numerous regulations to support the NPFMC's goals of limiting charter harvests.

At its January 2018 annual meeting, the IPHC did not agree upon or recommend catch limits or management measures for the 2018 charter halibut fisheries. As a result, the Areas 2C and 3A charter halibut management measures implemented in 2017 remain in effect for 2018 until superseded by an action separate from this final rule. NMFS may implement more restrictive regulations for the fishery for halibut or components of it; therefore, anglers are advised to check the current U.S. Federal and IPHC regulations prior to fishing.

A complete description of the process for setting the Area 2C and 3A 2017 charter halibut management measures, and the specific details of each area plan, can be found in the Federal Register at (82 FR 12730, March 7, 2017). A brief summary of the Area 2C and Area 3A 2017 halibut charter management measures follows below.

For Area 2C, the 2017 charter halibut management measures consisted of a one-fish daily bag limit with a reverse slot limit that prohibited a person on board a charter vessel from taking or possessing any halibut, with head on, that is greater than 44 inches (111.8 cm) and less than 80 inches (203.2 cm), as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail. For Area 3A, the 2017 the charter halibut management measures included: (1) A two-fish daily bag limit with a 28-inch (71.1 cm) size limit on one of the halibut; (2) a four-fish an annual limit, with a reporting requirement. (3) a one-trip per day limit for the entire season; (4) no retention of halibut on Wednesdays for the entire season; and, (5) no retention of halibut for three Tuesdays in 2017.

Although IPHC did not recommend new catch limits, or revised CSPs for Area 2C and 3A and for Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E, or revisions to charter halibut management measures in Areas 2C and 3A, the IPHC did recommend several amendments to the 2018 annual management measures. In addition to approving new halibut fishery opening and closing dates (described above), the other approved amendments are as follows:

Beginning in 2017, regulations in Section 14 (formerly Section 13) have required that all commercial Pacific halibut must be landed and weighed with their heads attached (head-on) for data reporting purposes. The head-on requirement is intended to improve the estimates of the weight of landed halibut. At the January 2018 annual IPHC meeting, the IPHC recommended revisions to Section 18(5) and 18(6) to clarify that the catch reporting requirements in these sections require head-on landing and weighing. The revisions specify that (1) all commercial halibut landed in Alaska regulatory areas must be weighed with the head on, and (2) the head-on weight must be reported in the applicable catch report. The regulations at Section 14(2) provides the following exception to the head-on requirement: Pacific halibut frozen at sea with its head removed may be possessed on board a vessel by persons in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E if authorized by Federal regulations.

In June 2017, the NPFMC took final action to allow CDQ groups to lease (to receive by transfer) halibut catcher vessel IFQ in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D in years of low halibut catch limits. This action is intended to provide additional harvest opportunities to CDQ groups and provide IFQ holders with the opportunity to receive value for their IFQ when the halibut catch limits may not be large enough to provide for an economically viable fishery for IFQ holders. Under current NMFS regulations, CDQ groups cannot receive by transfer any IFQ derived from catcher vessel QS. These restrictions limit the options for CDQ groups to expand opportunities for halibut fishing for residents in times of low halibut abundance. The Council's action authorizes CDQ groups to receive IFQ by transfer in Areas 4B, 4C, and 4D in years of low Pacific halibut catch limits in Areas 4B and 4CDE.

Low Pacific halibut catch limits triggering this provision would be 1,000,000 pounds (453.59 t) in Area 4B and 1,500,000 pounds (680.39 t) in the combined Area 4CDE. A CDQ group may lease catcher vessel IFQ only in areas it is allocated Pacific halibut CDQ. Only vessels equal to or under 51 feet length overall would be eligible to harvest the leased IFQ. Vessels must comply with IFQ use restrictions for all IFQ received by transfer.

NMFS is currently developing a proposed rule to implement the Council's recommendation. As part of its action, the Council recommended that any Area 4D IFQ transferred to a CDQ group may be fished in Area 4E by vessels less than or equal to 51 feet in length overall (LOA) when the low catch limit threshold in Area 4CDE is triggered. The Council recommended this provision to provide additional harvest opportunities for CDQ residents to use Area 4D IFQ in Area 4E consistent with regulations that allow Area 4D CDQ to be used in Area 4E. Implementation of this provision requires revisions to IPHC regulations.

At the January 2018 annual IPHC meeting, the IPHC recommended revisions to Sections (8)(1) and (8)(3) to revise its regulations for consistency with NMFS regulations if a final rule is approved to implement the Council's recommendations. The revisions to IPHC regulations clarify that the retention and catch reporting requirements of halibut taken for personal use in Areas 4E and 4D also apply to halibut that are taken by persons who are fishing IFQ that is received by transfer by a CDQ organization. The IPHC also recommended revisions to the Areas 4D and 4E catch limit calculations in Section 12(8) to include the harvest resulting from IFQ received by transfer by a CDQ organization. Individual Fishing Quota that is designated for Area 4D may continue to be harvested in Area 4E, and the total allowable catch of halibut that may be taken in the Area 4E directed commercial fishery is equal to the combined annual catch limits specified for the Areas 4D and 4E CDQ fisheries and any Area 4D IFQ received by transfer by a CDQ organization.

At the IPHC's January 2018 annual meeting, the IPHC recommended a revision to Section 29(1)(f) of IPHC regulations to clarify that halibut harvested on a charter vessel fishing trip in Area 2C or Area 3A must be retained on board the charter vessel on which the halibut was caught until the end of the charter vessel fishing trip as defined at 50 CFR 300.61. To accomplish this clarification, the word “all” was deleted from Section 28(1)(f) to distinguish the requirement in Section 28(1)(f) to retain halibut on board a charter vessel until the end of a charter trip from the requirement to retain carcasses for size-restricted halibut (see 50 CFR 300.65(d)(5)).

IPHC regulations at Section 29(1)(d) say that no person shall possess on board a vessel, including charter vessels and pleasure craft used for fishing, halibut that have been filleted, mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in any manner, except that each piece maybe cut into no more than 2 ventral pieces, 2 dorsal pieces, and 2 cheek pieces, with skin on all pieces. While this regulation is necessary for a proper accounting of fish on board a vessel and the enforcement of daily bag and possession limits, the precise amount of skin that must be left on each piece of halibut is not defined. Given that the purpose of the skin-on requirement is to distinguish pieces of halibut from the dorsal and ventral sides of the fish, it is not necessary to require all the skin to be left on all the pieces. To clarify the regulation, the IPHC determined that a patch of skin that is naturally attached on each piece of halibut that is cut into pieces as described in Section 29(1)(d) is adequate to satisfy the intent of the regulation.

On December 28, 2016, NMFS published a final rule to authorize longline pot gear for the IFQ sablefish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska (81 FR 95435). The Gulf of Alaska sablefish fishery takes place in a portion of Area 2C (not including the inside waters), all of Areas 3A, 3B, and that portion of 4A in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B and east of 170°00′ W longitude. The NMFS final rule also requires retention of halibut caught incidentally in longline pot gear subject to current retention requirements for the halibut IFQ Program (i.e., only if the halibut are of legal size and a person(s) on the vessel holds sufficient halibut IFQ). This recommendation is intended to avoid discard mortality of legal-size halibut caught incidentally in longline pots in the sablefish IFQ fishery, similar to current regulations that authorize sablefish and halibut IFQ holders using hook-and-line gear to retain legal-size halibut caught incidentally during the sablefish IFQ fishery. At its 2016 annual meeting, the IPHC recommended approval of longline pot gear, as defined by NMFS, as legal gear for the commercial halibut fishery in Alaska when NMFS regulations permit the use of this gear in the IFQ sablefish fishery.

At its 2018 annual meeting, the IPHC received a proposal for additional regulatory revisions that would allow halibut taken with pot gear to be retained in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The proposal was prompted by evidence of conflicts with whale depredation of halibut on longline gear and referenced the Council's consideration of an action to authorize longline pot gear for the IFQ sablefish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. After considering the proposal, the IPHC recommended changes to Section 20 (Fishing Gear) in parts (1)(b) and (2)(b) to authorize longline or single pot gear and struck the phrase that restricted retention of halibut taken in pot gear to only pot gear used the sablefish IFQ fishery. In recommending these changes, the IPHC noted the existing references in each subsection that allow pots to be used for halibut fishing “if such retention is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679”. Therefore, the regulatory revisions continue to authorize retention of halibut in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery consistent with NMFS regulations. The revisions also would accommodate a potential future Council recommendation and NMFS implementation of regulations to authorize retention of halibut taken in pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands.

Annual management measures in the charter halibut fishery are implemented to limit the charter sector to its harvest allocation under the CSP with the commercial halibut fishery. The management measures are recommended to the NPFMC by its Charter Halibut Management Committee. In recent years, one of the measures the Committee and the IPHC has recommended are closures on specific days of the week in Area 3A as a means to reduce the total charter sector harvest. In 2017, the management measures called for closures to halibut retention by charter vessel anglers on all Wednesdays over the entire season, and on three Tuesdays in July and August. As described in detail above, the IPHC did not adopt charter halibut management measures for 2018; as such, the management measures for 2017 remain in effect unless superseded by an action separate from this final rule. The regulatory revision recommended by the IPHC changes the reference dates published in the 2017 IPHC regulations to ensure that all the dates of the Tuesdays' closures fall on Tuesdays. If left unchanged, the three dates as written in the 2017 IPHC regulations would fall on Wednesdays in 2018. The revised dates are changed from 18 July, 25 July, and 1 August to 17 July, 24 July, and 31 July.

The following annual management measures for the 2018 Pacific halibut fishery are those recommended by the IPHC and accepted by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce.

These Regulations may be cited as the Pacific Halibut Fishery Regulations

(1) These Regulations apply to persons and vessels fishing for Pacific halibut in, or possessing Pacific halibut taken from, the maritime area as defined in Section 3.

(2) Sections 3 to 7 apply generally to all Pacific halibut fishing.

(3) Sections 8 to 21 apply to commercial fishing for Pacific halibut.

(4) Section 22 applies to tagged Pacific halibut caught by any vessel.

(5) Section 23 applies to the United States treaty Indian fishery in Subarea 2A-1.

(6) Section 24 applies to customary and traditional fishing in Alaska.

(7) Section 25 applies to Aboriginal groups fishing for food, social and ceremonial purposes in British Columbia.

(8) Sections 26 to 29 apply to sport fishing for Pacific halibut.

(9) These Regulations do not apply to fishing operations authorized or conducted by the Commission for research purposes.

(1) In these Regulations,

(a) “authorized officer” means any State, Federal, or Provincial officer authorized to enforce these Regulations including, but not limited to, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Alaska Wildlife Troopers (AWT), United States Coast Guard (USCG), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Oregon State Police (OSP), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);

(b) “authorized clearance personnel” means an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor;

(c) “charter vessel” outside of Alaska waters means a vessel used for hire in sport fishing for Pacific halibut, but not including a vessel without a hired operator, and in Alaska waters means a vessel used while providing or receiving sport fishing guide services for Pacific halibut;

(d) “commercial fishing” means fishing, the resulting catch of which is sold or bartered; or is intended to be sold or bartered, other than (i) sport fishing, (ii) treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing as referred to in section 23, (iii) customary and traditional fishing as referred to in section 24 and defined by and regulated pursuant to NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 300, and (iv) Aboriginal groups fishing in British Columbia as referred to in section 25;

(e) “Commission” or “IPHC” means the International Pacific Halibut Commission;

(f) “daily bag limit” means the maximum number of Pacific halibut a person may take in any calendar day from Convention waters;

(g) “fishing” means the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, including specifically the deployment of any amount or component part of gear anywhere in the maritime area;

(h) “fishing period limit” means the maximum amount of Pacific halibut that may be retained and landed by a vessel during one fishing period;

(i) “land” or “offload” with respect to Pacific halibut, means the removal of halibut from the catching vessel;

(j) “license” means a Pacific halibut fishing license issued by the Commission pursuant to section 5;

(k) “maritime area”, in respect of the fisheries jurisdiction of a Contracting Party, includes without distinction areas within and seaward of the territorial sea and internal waters of that Party;

(l) “net weight” of a Pacific halibut means the weight of Pacific halibut that is without gills and entrails, head-off, washed, and without ice and slime. If a Pacific halibut is weighed with the head on or with ice and slime, the required conversion factors for calculating net weight are a 2 percent deduction for ice and slime and a 10 percent deduction for the head;

(m) “operator”, with respect to any vessel, means the owner and/or the master or other individual on board and in charge of that vessel;

(n) “overall length” of a vessel means the horizontal distance, rounded to the nearest foot, between the foremost part of the stem and the aftermost part of the stern (excluding bowsprits, rudders, outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments);

(o) “person” includes an individual, corporation, firm, or association;

(p) “regulatory area” means an IPHC Regulatory Area referred to in section 7;

(q) “setline gear” means one or more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached;

(r) “sport fishing” or “recreational fishing” means all fishing other than (i) commercial fishing, (ii) treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence fishing as referred to in section 23, (iii) customary and traditional fishing as referred to in section 24 and defined in and regulated pursuant to NMFS regulations published in 50 CFR part 300, and (iv) Aboriginal groups fishing in British Columbia as referred to in section 25;

(s) “tender” means any vessel that buys or obtains fish directly from a catching vessel and transports it to a port of landing or fish processor;

(t) “VMS transmitter” means a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system transmitter that automatically determines a vessel's position and transmits it to a NMFS-approved communications service provider.1

(2) In these Regulations, all bearings are true and all positions are determined by the most recent charts issued by the United States National Ocean Service or the Canadian Hydrographic Service.

(1) The fishery limits resulting from the IPHC-adopted values and the Contracting Party catch sharing arrangements are as follows:

(1) No person shall fish for Pacific halibut from a vessel, nor possess Pacific halibut on board a vessel, used either for commercial fishing or as a charter vessel in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A, unless the Commission has issued a license valid for fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A in respect of that vessel.

(2) A license issued for a vessel operating in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A shall be valid only for operating either as a charter vessel or a commercial vessel, but not both.

(3) A vessel with a valid IPHC Regulatory Area 2A commercial license cannot be used to sport fish for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A.

(4) A license issued for a vessel operating in the commercial fishery in Area 2A shall be valid for one of the following:

(a) The directed commercial fishery during the fishing periods specified in paragraph (2) of section 9;

(b) the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery specified in paragraph (3) of section 9; or

(c) the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery specified in paragraph (4) of section 9.

(5) No person may apply for or be issued a license for a vessel operating in the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery in paragraph (4)(c), if that vessel was previously issued a license for either the directed commercial fishery in paragraph (4)(a) or the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery in paragraph (4)(b).

(6) A license issued in respect to a vessel referred to in paragraph (1) of this section must be carried on board that vessel at all times and the vessel operator shall permit its inspection by any authorized officer.

(7) The Commission shall issue a license in respect to a vessel, without fee, from its office in Seattle, Washington, upon receipt of a completed, written, and signed “Application for Vessel License for the Pacific Halibut Fishery” form.

(8) A vessel operating in the directed commercial fishery in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Pacific Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 2359 hours local time on 30 April, or the first weekday in May if 30 April is a Saturday or Sunday.

(9) A vessel operating in the incidental catch fishery during the sablefish fishery in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Pacific Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 2359 hours local time on 15 March, or the next weekday in March if 15 March is a Saturday or Sunday.

(10) A vessel operating in the incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A must have its “Application for Vessel License for the Pacific Halibut Fishery” form postmarked no later than 2359 hours local time on 15 March, or the next weekday in March if 15 March is a Saturday or Sunday.

(11) Application forms may be obtained from any authorized officer or from the IPHC Secretariat.

(12) Information on “Application for Vessel License for the Pacific Halibut Fishery” form must be accurate.

(13) The “Application for Vessel License for the Pacific Halibut Fishery” form shall be completed and signed by the vessel owner.

(14) Licenses issued under this section shall be valid only during the year in which they are issued.

(15) A new license is required for a vessel that is sold, transferred, renamed, or the documentation is changed.

(16) The license required under this section is in addition to any license, however designated, that is required under the laws of the United States or any of its States.

(17) The United States may suspend, revoke, or modify any license issued under this section under policies and procedures in U.S. Code Title 15, CFR part 904.

(1) The Commission is authorized to establish or modify regulations during the season after determining that such action:

(a) Will not result in exceeding the catch limit established preseason for each IPHC Regulatory Area;

(b) is consistent with the Convention between Canada and the United States of America for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and applicable domestic law of either Canada or the United States of America; and

(c) is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with any domestic catch sharing plans or other domestic allocation programs developed by the United States or Canadian governments.

(2) In-season actions may include, but are not limited to, establishment or modification of the following:

(a) Closed areas;

(b) fishing periods;

(c) fishing period limits;

(d) gear restrictions;

(e) recreational bag limits;

(f) size limits; or

(g) vessel clearances.

(3) In-season changes will be effective at the time and date specified by the Commission.

(4) The Commission will announce in-season actions under this section by providing notice to major Pacific halibut processors; Federal, State, United States treaty Indian, and Provincial fishery officials; and the media.

The following areas shall be IPHC Regulatory Areas (see Figure 1) for the purposes of the Convention:

(1) IPHC Regulatory Area 2A includes all waters off the states of California, Oregon, and Washington;

(2) IPHC Regulatory Area 2B includes all waters off British Columbia;

(3) IPHC Regulatory Area 2C includes all waters off Alaska that are east of a line running 340° true from Cape Spencer Light (58°11′56″ N latitude, 136°38′26″ W longitude) and south and east of a line running 205° true from said light;

(4) IPHC Regulatory Area 3A includes all waters between Area 2C and a line extending from the most northerly point on Cape Aklek (57°41′15″ N latitude, 155°35′00″ W longitude) to Cape Ikolik (57°17′17″ N latitude, 154°47′18″ W longitude), then along the Kodiak Island coastline to Cape Trinity (56°44′50″ N latitude, 154°08′44″ W longitude), then 140° true;

(5) IPHC Regulatory Area 3B includes all waters between Area 3A and a line extending 150° true from Cape Lutke (54°29′00″ N latitude, 164°20′00″ W longitude) and south of 54°49′00″ N latitude in Isanotski Strait;

(6) IPHC Regulatory Area 4A includes all waters in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B and in the Bering Sea west of the closed area defined in section 10 that are east of 172°00′00″ W longitude and south of 56°20′00″ N latitude;

(7) IPHC Regulatory Area 4B includes all waters in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska west of IPHC Regulatory Area 4A and south of 56°20′00″ N latitude;

(8) IPHC Regulatory Area 4C includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of IPHC Regulatory Area 4A and north of the closed area defined in section 10 which are east of 171°00′00″ W longitude, south of 58°00′00″ N latitude, and west of 168°00′00″ W longitude;

(9) IPHC Regulatory Area 4D includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of IPHC Regulatory Areas 4A and 4B, north and west of IPHC Regulatory Area 4C, and west of 168°00′00″ W longitude; and

(10) Area 4E includes all waters in the Bering Sea north and east of the closed area defined in section 10, east of 168°00′00″ W longitude, and south of 65°34′00″ N latitude.

(1) Section 8 applies only to any person fishing for, or any vessel that is used to fish for, IPHC Regulatory Area 4E Community Development Quota (CDQ) Pacific halibut, IPHC Regulatory Area 4D CDQ Pacific halibut, or IPHC Regulatory Area 4D IFQ received by transfer by a CDQ organization provided that the total annual halibut catch of that person or vessel is landed at a port within IPHC Regulatory Areas 4E or 4D.

(2) A person may retain Pacific halibut taken with setline gear that are smaller than the size limit specified in section 14, provided that no person may sell or barter such Pacific halibut.

(3) The manager of a CDQ organization that authorizes persons to harvest Pacific halibut in the IPHC Regulatory Area 4E or 4D CDQ fisheries or IFQ received by transfer by a CDQ organization must report to the Commission the total number and weight of undersized Pacific halibut taken and retained by such persons pursuant to section 8, paragraph (2). This report, which shall include data and methodology used to collect the data, must be received by the Commission prior to 1 November of the year in which such Pacific halibut were harvested.

(1) The fishing periods for each regulatory area apply where the catch limits specified in section 12 have not been taken.

(2) Each fishing period in the IPHC Regulatory Area 2A directed commercial fishery 2 shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800 hours local time on 27 June, 11 July, 25 July, 8 August, 22 August, 5 September, and 19 September, unless the Commission specifies otherwise.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 12, an incidental catch fishery 3 is authorized during the sablefish seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NMFS. This fishery will occur between 1200 hours local time on 24 March and 1200 hours local time on 7 November.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and paragraph (7) of section 12, an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon troll seasons in Area 2A in accordance with regulations promulgated by NMFS. This fishery will occur between 1200 hours local time on 24 March and 1200 hours local time on 7 November.

(5) The fishing period in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall begin at 1200 hours local time on 24 March and terminate at 1200 hours local time on 7 November, unless the Commission specifies otherwise.

(6) All commercial fishing for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall cease at 1200 hours local time on 7 November.

(1) No person shall engage in fishing for Pacific halibut in any IPHC Regulatory Area other than during the fishing periods set out in section 9 in respect of that area.

(2) No person shall land or otherwise retain Pacific halibut caught outside a fishing period applicable to the regulatory area where the Pacific halibut was taken.

(3) Subject to paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and (10) of section 20, these Regulations do not prohibit fishing for any species of fish other than Pacific halibut during the closed periods.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), no person shall have Pacific halibut in his/her possession while fishing for any other species of fish during the closed periods.

(5) No vessel shall retrieve any Pacific halibut fishing gear during a closed period if the vessel has any Pacific halibut on board.

(6) A vessel that has no Pacific halibut on board may retrieve any Pacific halibut fishing gear during the closed period after the operator notifies an authorized officer or representative of the Commission prior to that retrieval.

(7) After retrieval of Pacific halibut gear in accordance with paragraph (6), the vessel shall submit to a hold inspection at the discretion of the authorized officer or representative of the Commission.

(8) No person shall retain any Pacific halibut caught on gear retrieved in accordance with paragraph (6).

(9) No person shall possess Pacific halibut on board a vessel in a regulatory area during a closed period unless that vessel is in continuous transit to or within a port in which that Pacific halibut may be lawfully sold.

All waters in the Bering Sea north of 55°00′00″ N latitude in Isanotski Strait that are enclosed by a line from Cape Sarichef Light (54°36′00″ N latitude, 164°55′42″ W longitude) to a point at 56°20′00″ N latitude, 168°30′00″ W longitude; thence to a point at 58°21′25″ N latitude, 163°00′00″ W longitude; thence to Strogonof Point (56°53′18″ N latitude, 158°50′37″ W longitude); and then along the northern coasts of the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island to the point of origin at Cape Sarichef Light are closed to Pacific halibut fishing and no person shall fish for Pacific halibut therein or have Pacific halibut in his/her possession while in those waters except in the course of a continuous transit across those waters. All waters in Isanotski Strait between 55°00′00″ N latitude and 54°49′00″ N latitude are closed to Pacific halibut fishing.

(1) The total allowable commercial catch of Pacific halibut to be taken during the commercial Pacific halibut fishing periods specified in section 9 shall be limited to the net weights expressed in pounds or metric tons shown in the following table:

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), regulations pertaining to the division of the IPHC Regulatory Area 2A catch limit between the directed commercial fishery and the incidental catch fishery as described in paragraph (4) of section 9 will be promulgated by NMFS and published in the Federal Register.

(3) The Commission shall determine and announce to the public the date on which the catch limit for IPHC Regulatory Area 2A will be taken.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the commercial fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 2B will close only when all Individual Vessel Quotas (IVQs) assigned by DFO are taken, or 7 November, whichever is earlier.

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E will each close only when all Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) and all CDQs issued by NMFS have been taken, or 7 November, whichever is earlier.

(6) If the Commission determines that the catch limit specified for IPHC Regulatory Area 2A in paragraph (1) would be exceeded in an unrestricted 10-hour fishing period as specified in paragraph (2) of section 9, the catch limit for that area shall be considered to have been taken and the directed commercial fishery closed as announced by the Commission.

(7) When under paragraphs (2), (3), and (6) the Commission has announced a date on which the catch limit for IPHC Regulatory Area 2A will be taken, no person shall fish for Pacific halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless the Commission has announced the reopening of that area for Pacific halibut fishing.

(8) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the total allowable catch of Pacific halibut that may be taken in the IPHC Regulatory Area 4E directed commercial fishery is equal to the combined annual catch limits specified for the IPHC Regulatory Areas 4D and 4E CDQ fisheries and any IPHC Regulatory Area 4D IFQ received by transfer by a CDQ organization. The annual IPHC Regulatory Area 4D catch limit will decrease by the equivalent amount of CDQ and IFQ received by transfer by a CDQ organization taken in IPHC Regulatory Area 4E in excess of the annual IPHC Regulatory Area 4E catch limit.

(9) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the total allowable catch of Pacific halibut that may be taken in the IPHC Regulatory Area 4D directed commercial fishery is equal to the combined annual catch limits specified for IPHC Regulatory Areas 4C and 4D. The annual IPHC Regulatory Area 4C catch limit will decrease by the equivalent amount of Pacific halibut taken in IPHC Regulatory Area 4D in excess of the annual IPHC Regulatory Area 4D catch limit.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any vessel to retain more Pacific halibut than authorized by that vessel's license in any fishing period for which the Commission has announced a fishing period limit.

(2) The operator of any vessel that fishes for Pacific halibut during a fishing period when fishing period limits are in effect must, upon commencing an offload of Pacific halibut to a commercial fish processor, completely offload all Pacific halibut on board said vessel to that processor and ensure that all Pacific halibut is weighed and reported on State fish tickets.

(3) The operator of any vessel that fishes for Pacific halibut during a fishing period when fishing period limits are in effect must, upon commencing an offload of Pacific halibut other than to a commercial fish processor, completely offload all Pacific halibut on board said vessel and ensure that all Pacific halibut are weighed and reported on State fish tickets.

(4) The provisions of paragraph (3) are not intended to prevent retail over-the-side sales to individual purchasers so long as all the Pacific halibut on board is ultimately offloaded and reported.

(5) When fishing period limits are in effect, a vessel's maximum retainable catch will be determined by the Commission based on:

(a) The vessel's overall length in feet and associated length class;

(b) the average performance of all vessels within that class; and

(c) the remaining catch limit.

(6) Length classes are shown in the following table:

(7) Fishing period limits in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A apply only to the directed Pacific halibut fishery referred to in paragraph (2) of section 9.

(1) No person shall take or possess any Pacific halibut that:

(a) With the head on, is less than 32 inches (81.3 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 2; or

(b) with the head removed, is less than 24 inches (61.0 cm) as measured from the base of the pectoral fin at its most anterior point to the extreme end of the middle of the tail, as illustrated in Figure 2.

(2) No person on board a vessel fishing for, or tendering, Pacific halibut in any IPHC Regulatory Area shall possess any Pacific halibut that has had its head removed, except that Pacific halibut frozen at sea with its head removed may be possessed on board a vessel by persons in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E if authorized by Federal regulations.

(3) The size limit in paragraph (1)(b) will not be applied to any Pacific halibut that has had its head removed after the operator has landed the Pacific halibut.

(1) All Pacific halibut that are caught and are not retained shall be immediately released outboard of the roller and returned to the sea with a minimum of injury by:

(a) Hook straightening;

(b) cutting the gangion near the hook; or

(c) carefully removing the hook by twisting it from the Pacific halibut with a gaff.

(2) Except that paragraph (1) shall not prohibit the possession of Pacific halibut on board a vessel that has been brought aboard to be measured to determine if the minimum size limit of the Pacific halibut is met and, if sublegal-sized, is promptly returned to the sea with a minimum of injury.

(1) The operator of any vessel that fishes for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D must obtain a vessel clearance before fishing in any of these areas, and before the landing of any Pacific halibut caught in any of these areas, unless specifically exempted in paragraphs (10), (13), (14), (15), or (16).

(2) An operator obtaining a vessel clearance required by paragraph (1) must obtain the clearance in person from the authorized clearance personnel and sign the IPHC form documenting that a clearance was obtained, except that when the clearance is obtained via VHF radio referred to in paragraphs (5), (8), and (9), the authorized clearance personnel must sign the IPHC form documenting that the clearance was obtained.

(3) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 4A may be obtained only at Nazan Bay on Atka Island, Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.

(4) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 4B may only be obtained at Nazan Bay on Atka Island or Adak, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.

(5) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (1) prior to fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 4C or 4D may be obtained only at St. Paul or St. George, Alaska, from an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel.

(6) The vessel operator shall specify the specific regulatory area in which fishing will take place.

(7) Before unloading any Pacific halibut caught in IPHC Regulatory Area 4A, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in Dutch Harbor or Akutan, Alaska, by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.

(8) Before unloading any Pacific halibut caught in IPHC Regulatory Area 4B, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in Nazan Bay on Atka Island or Adak, by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio or in person.

(9) Before unloading any Pacific halibut caught in IPHC Regulatory Areas 4C and 4D, a vessel operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (1) only in St. Paul, St. George, Dutch Harbor, or Akutan, Alaska, either in person or by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearances obtained in St. Paul or St. George, Alaska, can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel.

(10) Any vessel operator who complies with the requirements in section 19 for possessing Pacific halibut on board a vessel that was caught in more than one regulatory area in IPHC Regulatory Area 4 is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1) of this section, provided that:

(a) The operator of the vessel obtains a vessel clearance prior to fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 4 in either Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel. This clearance will list the areas in which the vessel will fish; and

(b) before unloading any Pacific halibut from IPHC Regulatory Area 4, the vessel operator obtains a vessel clearance from Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St. George, Adak, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul or St. George can be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the vessel. The clearance obtained in Adak or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio.

(11) Vessel clearances shall be obtained between 0600 and 1800 hours, local time.

(12) No Pacific halibut shall be on board the vessel at the time of the clearances required prior to fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 4.

(13) Any vessel that is used to fish for Pacific halibut only in IPHC Regulatory Area 4A and lands its total annual Pacific halibut catch at a port within IPHC Regulatory Area 4A is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(14) Any vessel that is used to fish for Pacific halibut only in IPHC Regulatory Area 4B and lands its total annual Pacific halibut catch at a port within IPHC Regulatory Area 4B is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(15) Any vessel that is used to fish for Pacific halibut only in IPHC Regulatory Areas 4C or 4D or 4E and lands its total annual Pacific halibut catch at a port within IPHC Regulatory Areas 4C, 4D, 4E, or the closed area defined in section 11, is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1).

(16) Any vessel that carries a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D and until all Pacific halibut caught in any of these areas is landed, is exempt from the clearance requirements of paragraph (1) of this section, provided that:

(a) The operator of the vessel complies with NMFS' vessel monitoring system regulations published at 50 CFR 679.28(f)(3), (4) and (5); and

(b) the operator of the vessel notifies NOAA Fisheries Office for Law Enforcement at 800-304-4846 (select option 1 to speak to an Enforcement Data Clerk) between the hours of 0600 and 0000 (midnight) local time within 72 hours before fishing for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, or 4D and receives a VMS confirmation number.

(1) The operator of any U.S. vessel fishing for Pacific halibut that has an overall length of 26 feet (7.9 meters) or greater shall maintain an accurate log of Pacific halibut fishing operations. The operator of a vessel fishing in waters in and off Alaska must use one of the following logbooks: The Groundfish/IFQ Longline and Pot Gear Daily Fishing Logbook, in electronic or paper form, provided by NMFS; the Alaska hook-and-line logbook provided by Petersburg Vessel Owners Association or Alaska Longline Fisherman's Association; the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) longline-pot logbook; or the logbook provided by IPHC. The operator of a vessel fishing in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A must use either the WDFW Voluntary Sablefish Logbook, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Fixed Gear Logbook, or the logbook provided by IPHC.

(2) The logbook referred to in paragraph (1) must include the following information:

(a) The name of the vessel and the State (ADFG, WDFW, ODFW, or CDFW) or Tribal ID number;

(b) the date(s) upon which the fishing gear is set or retrieved;

(c) the latitude and longitude coordinates or a direction and distance from a point of land for each set or day;

(d) the number of skates deployed or retrieved, and number of skates lost; and

(e) the total weight or number of Pacific halibut retained for each set or day.

(3) The logbook referred to in paragraph (1) shall be:

(a) Maintained on board the vessel;

(b) updated not later than 24 hours after 0000 (midnight) local time for each day fished and prior to the offloading or sale of Pacific halibut taken during that fishing trip;

(c) retained for a period of two years by the owner or operator of the vessel;

(d) open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission upon demand; and

(e) kept on board the vessel when engaged in Pacific halibut fishing, during transits to port of landing, and until the offloading of all Pacific halibut is completed.

(4) The log referred to in paragraph (1) does not apply to the incidental Pacific halibut fishery during the salmon troll season in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A defined in paragraph (4) of section 9.

(5) The operator of any Canadian vessel fishing for Pacific halibut shall maintain an accurate record in the British Columbia Integrated Groundfish Fishing Log.

(6) The log referred to in paragraph (5) must include the following information:

(a) The name of the vessel and the DFO vessel registration number;

(b) the date(s) upon which the fishing gear is set and retrieved;

(c) the latitude and longitude coordinates for each set;

(d) the number of skates deployed or retrieved, and number of skates lost; and

(e) the total weight or number of Pacific halibut retained for each set.

(7) The log referred to in paragraph (5) shall be:

(a) Maintained on board the vessel;

(b) retained for a period of two years by the owner or operator of the vessel;

(c) open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission upon demand;

(d) kept on board the vessel when engaged in Pacific halibut fishing, during transits to port of landing, and until the offloading of all Pacific halibut is completed;

(e) submitted to the DFO within seven days of offloading; and

(f) submitted to the Commission within seven days of the final offload if not previously collected by a Commission employee.

(8) No person shall make a false entry in a log referred to in this section.

(1) No person shall receive Pacific halibut caught in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A from a United States vessel that does not have on board the license required by section 5.

(2) No person shall possess on board a vessel a Pacific halibut other than whole or with gills and entrails removed, except that this paragraph shall not prohibit the possession on board a vessel of:

(a) Pacific halibut cheeks cut from Pacific halibut caught by persons authorized to process the Pacific halibut on board in accordance with NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679;

(b) fillets from Pacific halibut offloaded in accordance with section 18 that are possessed on board the harvesting vessel in the port of landing up to 1800 hours local time on the calendar day following the offload; 7 and

(c) Pacific halibut with their heads removed in accordance with section 14.

(3) No person shall offload Pacific halibut from a vessel unless the gills and entrails have been removed prior to offloading.

(4) It shall be the responsibility of a vessel operator who lands Pacific halibut to continuously and completely offload at a single offload site all Pacific halibut on board the vessel.

(5) A registered buyer (as that term is defined in regulations promulgated by NMFS and codified at 50 CFR part 679) who receives Pacific halibut harvested in IFQ and CDQ fisheries in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, directly from the vessel operator that harvested such Pacific halibut must weigh all the Pacific halibut received and record the following information on Federal catch reports: Date of offload; name of vessel; vessel number (State, Tribal or Federal, not IPHC vessel number); scale weight obtained at the time of offloading, including the scale weight (in pounds) of Pacific halibut purchased by the registered buyer, the scale weight (in pounds) of Pacific halibut offloaded in excess of the IFQ or CDQ, the scale weight of Pacific halibut (in pounds) retained for personal use or for future sale, and the scale weight (in pounds) of Pacific halibut discarded as unfit for human consumption. All Pacific halibut harvested in IFQ or CDQ fisheries in Areas IPHC Regulatory 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, must be weighed with the head on and the head-on weight must be recorded on Federal catch reports as specified in this paragraph, unless the Pacific halibut is frozen at sea and exempt from the head-on landing requirement at Section 14(2).

(6) The first recipient, commercial fish processor, or buyer in the United States who purchases or receives Pacific halibut directly from the vessel operator that harvested such Pacific halibut must weigh and record all Pacific halibut received and record the following information on State fish tickets: The date of offload; vessel number (State or Federal, not IPHC vessel number) or Tribal ID number; total weight obtained at the time of offload including the weight (in pounds) of Pacific halibut purchased; the weight (in pounds) of Pacific halibut offloaded in excess of the IFQ, CDQ, or fishing period limits; the weight of Pacific halibut (in pounds) retained for personal use or for future sale; and the weight (in pounds) of halibut discarded as unfit for human consumption. All Pacific halibut harvested in IFQ or CDQ fisheries in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E, must be weighed with the head on and the head-on weight must be recorded on State fish tickets as specified in this paragraph, unless the Pacific halibut is frozen at sea and exempt from the head-on landing requirement at Section 14(2).

(7) For Pacific halibut landings made in Alaska, the requirements as listed in paragraphs (5) and (6) can be met by recording the information in the Interagency Electronic Reporting Systems, eLandings in accordance with NMFS regulation published at 50 CFR part 679.

(8) The master or operator of a Canadian vessel that was engaged in Pacific halibut fishing must weigh and record all Pacific halibut on board said vessel at the time offloading commences and record on Provincial fish tickets or Federal catch reports: The date; locality; name of vessel; the name(s) of the person(s) from whom the Pacific halibut was purchased; and the scale weight obtained at the time of offloading of all Pacific halibut on board the vessel including the pounds purchased, pounds in excess of IVQs, pounds retained for personal use, and pounds discarded as unfit for human consumption. All Pacific halibut must be weighed with the head on and the head-on weight must be recorded on the Provincial fish tickets or Federal catch reports as specified in this paragraph, unless the Pacific halibut is frozen at sea and exempt from the head-on landing requirement at Section 14(2).

(9) No person shall make a false entry on a State or Provincial fish ticket or a Federal catch or landing report referred to in paragraphs (5), (6), and (8) of section 18.

(10) A copy of the fish tickets or catch reports referred to in paragraphs (5), (6), and (8) shall be:

(a) Retained by the person making them for a period of three years from the date the fish tickets or catch reports are made; and

(b) open to inspection by an authorized officer or any authorized representative of the Commission.

(11) No person shall possess any Pacific halibut taken or retained in contravention of these Regulations.

(12) When Pacific halibut are landed to other than a commercial fish processor, the records required by paragraph (6) shall be maintained by the operator of the vessel from which that Pacific halibut was caught, in compliance with paragraph (10).

(13) No person shall tag Pacific halibut unless the tagging is authorized by IPHC permit or by a Federal or State agency.

(1) Except as provided in this section, no person shall possess at the same time on board a vessel Pacific halibut caught in more than one IPHC Regulatory Area.

(2) Pacific halibut caught in more than one of the IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E may be possessed on board a vessel at the same time only if:

(a) Authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR 679.7(f)(4); and

(b) the operator of the vessel identifies the regulatory area in which each Pacific halibut on board was caught by separating Pacific halibut from different areas in the hold, tagging Pacific halibut, or by other means.

(1) No person shall fish for Pacific halibut using any gear other than hook and line gear,

(a) except that vessels licensed to catch sablefish in IPHC Regulatory Area 2B using sablefish trap gear as defined in the Condition of Licence can retain Pacific halibut caught as bycatch under regulations promulgated by DFO; or

(b) except that a person may retain Pacific halibut taken with longline or single pot gear if such retention is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679.

(2) No person shall possess Pacific halibut taken with any gear other than hook and line gear,

(a) except that vessels licensed to catch sablefish in IPHC Regulatory Area 2B using sablefish trap gear as defined by the Condition of Licence can retain Pacific halibut caught as bycatch under regulations promulgated by DFO; or

(b) except that a person may possess Pacific halibut taken with longline or single pot gear if such possession is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679.

(3) No person shall possess Pacific halibut while on board a vessel carrying any trawl nets or fishing pots capable of catching Pacific halibut,

(a) except that in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E, Pacific halibut heads, skin, entrails, bones or fins for use as bait may be possessed on board a vessel carrying pots capable of catching Pacific halibut, provided that a receipt documenting purchase or transfer of these Pacific halibut parts is on board the vessel; or

(b) except that in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E, Pacific halibut may be possessed on board a vessel carrying pots capable of catching Pacific halibut, provided such possession is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679 as referenced in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section; or

(c) except that in IPHC Regulatory Area 2B, Pacific halibut may be possessed on board a vessel carrying sablefish trap gear, provided such possession is authorized by the Condition of Licence regulations promulgated by DFO as referenced in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.

(4) All gear marker buoys carried on board or used by any United States vessel used for Pacific halibut fishing shall be marked with one of the following:

(a) The vessel's State license number; or

(b) the vessel's registration number.

(5) The markings specified in paragraph (4) shall be in characters at least four inches in height and one-half inch in width in a contrasting color visible above the water and shall be maintained in legible condition.

(6) All gear marker buoys carried on board or used by a Canadian vessel used for Pacific halibut fishing shall be:

(a) Floating and visible on the surface of the water; and

(b) legibly marked with the identification plate number of the vessel engaged in commercial fishing from which that setline is being operated.

(7) No person on board a vessel used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the fishing period for the directed commercial fishery shall catch or possess Pacific halibut anywhere in those waters during that Pacific halibut fishing period unless, prior to the start of the Pacific halibut fishing period, the vessel has removed its gear from the water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its catch of other fish; or

(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.

(8) No vessel used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in IPHC Regulatory Area 2A during the 72-hour period immediately before the fishing period for the directed commercial fishery may be used to catch or possess Pacific halibut anywhere in those waters during that Pacific halibut fishing period unless, prior to the start of the Pacific halibut fishing period, the vessel has removed its gear from the water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its catch of other fish; or

(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.

(9) No person on board a vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of the Pacific halibut fishing season shall catch or possess Pacific halibut anywhere in those areas until the vessel has removed all of its setline gear from the water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its entire catch of other fish; or

(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.

(10) No vessel from which setline gear was used to fish for any species of fish anywhere in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, or 4E during the 72-hour period immediately before the opening of the Pacific halibut fishing season may be used to catch or possess Pacific halibut anywhere in those areas until the vessel has removed all of its setline gear from the water and has either:

(a) Made a landing and completely offloaded its entire catch of other fish; or

(b) submitted to a hold inspection by an authorized officer.

(11) Notwithstanding any other provision in these Regulations, a person may retain, possess and dispose of Pacific halibut taken with trawl gear only as authorized by Prohibited Species Donation regulations of NMFS.

The unloading and weighing of Pacific halibut may be subject to the supervision of authorized officers to assure the fulfillment of the provisions of these Regulations.

(1) Nothing contained in these Regulations prohibits any vessel at any time from retaining and landing a Pacific halibut that bears a Commission external tag at the time of capture, if the Pacific halibut with the tag still attached is reported at the time of landing and made available for examination by a representative of the Commission or by an authorized officer.

(2) After examination and removal of the tag by a representative of the Commission or an authorized officer, the Pacific halibut:

(a) May be retained for personal use; or

(b) may be sold only if the Pacific halibut is caught during commercial Pacific halibut fishing and complies with the other commercial fishing provisions of these Regulations.

(3) Any Pacific halibut that bears a Commission external tag must count against commercial IVQs, CDQs, or IFQs unless otherwise exempted by State, Provincial, or Federal regulations.

(4) Any Pacific halibut that bears a Commission external tag will not count against sport daily bag limits or possession limits, may be retained outside of sport fishing seasons, and are not subject to size limits in these regulations.

(5) Any Pacific halibut that bears a Commission external tag will not count against daily bag limits, possession limits, or catch limits in the fisheries described in section 23, paragraph (7), section 24, or section 25.

(1) Pacific halibut fishing in Subarea 2A-1 by members of United States treaty Indian tribes located in the State of Washington shall be regulated under regulations promulgated by NMFS and published in the Federal Register.

(2) Subarea 2A-1 includes all waters off the coast of Washington that are north of the Quinault River, WA (47°21.00′ N lat.), and east of 125°44.00′ W long; all waters off the coast of Washington that are between the Quinault River, WA (47°21.00′ N lat.), and Point Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N lat.), and east of 125°08.50′ W long.; and all inland marine waters of Washington.

(3) Section 14 (size limits), section 15 (careful release of Pacific halibut), section 17 (logs), section 18 (receipt and possession of Pacific halibut) and section 20 (fishing gear), except paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 20, apply to commercial fishing for Pacific halibut in Subarea 2A-1 by the treaty Indian tribes.

(4) Regulations in paragraph (3) of this section that apply to State fish tickets apply to Tribal tickets that are authorized by WDFW.

(5) Section 4 (Licensing Vessels for IPHC Regulatory Area 2A) does not apply to commercial fishing for Pacific halibut in Subarea 2A-1 by treaty Indian tribes.

(6) Commercial fishing for Pacific halibut in Subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook and line gear from 24 March through 7 November, or until 435,900 pounds (197.72 metric tons) net weight is taken, whichever occurs first.

(7) Ceremonial and subsistence fishing for Pacific halibut in Subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook and line gear from January 1 through December 31, and is estimated to take 29,600 pounds (13.43 metric tons) net weight.

(1) Customary and traditional fishing for Pacific halibut in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E shall be governed pursuant to regulations promulgated by NMFS and published in 50 CFR part 300.

(2) Customary and traditional fishing is authorized from 1 January through 31 December.

(1) Fishing for Pacific halibut for food, social and ceremonial purposes by Aboriginal groups in IPHC Regulatory Area 2B shall be governed by the Fisheries Act of Canada and regulations as amended from time to time.

(1) No person shall engage in sport fishing for Pacific halibut using gear other than a single line with no more than two hooks attached; or a spear.

(2) Any size limit promulgated under IPHC or NMFS regulations shall be measured in a straight line passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with the mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail.

(3) Any Pacific halibut brought aboard a vessel and not immediately returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be included in the daily bag limit of the person catching the Pacific halibut.

(4) No person may possess Pacific halibut on a vessel while fishing in a closed area.

(5) No Pacific halibut caught by sport fishing shall be offered for sale, sold, traded, or bartered.

(6) No Pacific halibut caught in sport fishing shall be possessed on board a vessel when other fish or shellfish aboard said vessel are destined for commercial use, sale, trade, or barter.

(7) The operator of a charter vessel shall be liable for any violations of these Regulations committed by an angler on board said vessel. In Alaska, the charter vessel guide, as defined in 50 CFR 300.61 and referred to in 50 CFR 300.65, 300.66, and 300.67, shall be liable for any violation of these Regulations committed by an angler on board a charter vessel.

(1) The total allowable catch of Pacific halibut shall be limited to:

(a) 237,762 pounds (107.85 metric tons) net weight in waters off Washington;

(b) 256,757 pounds (116.46 metric tons) net weight in waters off Oregon; and

(c) 34,580 pounds (15.69 metric tons) net weight in waters off California.

(2) The Commission shall determine and announce closing dates to the public for any area in which the catch limits promulgated by NMFS are estimated to have been taken.

(3) When the Commission has determined that a subquota under paragraph (8) of this section is estimated to have been taken, and has announced a date on which the season will close, no person shall sport fish for Pacific halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless a reopening of that area for sport halibut fishing is scheduled in accordance with the Catch Sharing Plan for IPHC Regulatory Area 2A, or announced by the Commission.

(4) In California, Oregon, or Washington, no person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a Pacific halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.

(5) The possession limit on a vessel for Pacific halibut in the waters off the coast of Washington is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit for Pacific halibut on land in Washington is two daily bag limits.

(6) The possession limit on a vessel for Pacific halibut caught in the waters off the coast of Oregon is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit for Pacific halibut on land in Oregon is three daily bag limits.

(7) The possession limit on a vessel for Pacific halibut caught in the waters off the coast of California is one daily bag limit. The possession limit for Pacific halibut on land in California is one daily bag limit.

(8) Specific regulations describing fishing periods, catch limits, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are promulgated by NMFS and published in the Federal Register.

(1) In all waters off British Columbia: 8 9

(a) The sport fishing season will open on 1 February unless more restrictive regulations are in place;

(b) the sport fishing season will close when the sport catch limit allocated by DFO, is taken, or 31 December, whichever is earlier; and

(c) the daily bag limit is two Pacific halibut of any size per day per person.

(2) In British Columbia, no person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a Pacific halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.

(3) The possession limit for Pacific halibut in the waters off the coast of British Columbia is three Pacific halibut.9 10

(1) In Convention waters in and off Alaska: 10 11

(a) The sport fishing season is from 1 February to 31 December.

(b) The daily bag limit is two Pacific halibut of any size per day per person unless a more restrictive bag limit applies in Commission regulations or Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.65.

(c) No person may possess more than two daily bag limits.

(d) No person shall possess on board a vessel, including charter vessels and pleasure craft used for fishing, Pacific halibut that have been filleted, mutilated, or otherwise disfigured in any manner, except that each Pacific halibut may be cut into no more than 2 ventral pieces, 2 dorsal pieces, and 2 cheek pieces, with a patch of skin on each piece, naturally attached.

(e) Pacific halibut in excess of the possession limit in paragraph (1)(c) of this section may be possessed on a vessel that does not contain sport fishing gear, fishing rods, hand lines, or gaffs.

(f) Pacific halibut harvested on a charter vessel fishing trip in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C or 3A must be retained on board the charter vessel on which the Pacific halibut was caught until the end of the charter vessel fishing trip as defined at 50 CFR 300.61.

(g) Guided angler fish (GAF), as described at 50 CFR 300.65, may be used to allow a charter vessel angler to harvest additional Pacific halibut up to the limits in place for unguided anglers, and are exempt from the requirements in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section.

(2) For guided sport fishing (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) in IPHC Regulatory Area 2C:

(a) The total allocation, including estimated harvest and discard mortality (wastage), is 915,000 pounds (415.04 metric tons).

(b) No person on board a charter vessel (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) shall catch and retain more than one Pacific halibut per calendar day.

(c) No person on board a charter vessel (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) shall catch and retain any Pacific halibut that with head on is greater than 44 inches (111.8 cm) and less than 80 inches (203.2 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail.

(3) For guided sport fishing (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) in IPHC Regulatory Area 3A:

(a) The total allocation, including estimated harvest and discard mortality (wastage), is 1,890,000 pounds (857.29 metric tons).

(b) No person on board a charter vessel (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.65) shall catch and retain more than two Pacific halibut per calendar day.

(c) At least one of the retained Pacific halibut must have a head-on length of no more than 28 inches (71.1 cm) as measured in a straight line, passing over the pectoral fin from the tip of the lower jaw with mouth closed, to the extreme end of the middle of the tail. If a person sport fishing on a charter vessel in IPHC Regulatory Area 3A retains only one Pacific halibut in a calendar day, that Pacific halibut may be of any length.

(d) A charter halibut permit (as referred to in 50 CFR 300.67) may only be used for one charter vessel fishing trip in which Pacific halibut are caught and retained per calendar day. A charter vessel fishing trip is defined at 50 CFR 300.61 as the time period between the first deployment of fishing gear into the water by a charter vessel angler (as defined at 50 CFR 300.61) and the offloading of one or more charter vessel anglers or any Pacific halibut from that vessel. For purposes of this trip limit, a charter vessel fishing trip ends at 2359 (Alaska local time) on the same calendar day that the fishing trip began, or when any anglers or Pacific halibut are offloaded, whichever comes first.

(e) A charter vessel on which one or more anglers catch and retain Pacific halibut may only make one charter vessel fishing trip per calendar day. A charter vessel fishing trip is defined at 50 CFR 300.61 as the time period between the first deployment of fishing gear into the water by a charter vessel angler (as defined at 50 CFR 300.61) and the offloading of one or more charter vessel anglers or any Pacific halibut from that vessel. For purposes of this trip limit, a charter vessel fishing trip ends at 2359 (Alaska local time) on the same calendar day that the fishing trip began, or when any anglers or Pacific halibut are offloaded, whichever comes first.

(f) No person on board a charter vessel may catch and retain Pacific halibut on any Wednesday, or on the following Tuesdays: 17 July, 24 July, and 31 July.

(g) Charter vessel anglers may catch and retain no more than four (4) Pacific halibut per calendar year on board charter vessels in IPHC Regulatory Area 3A. Pacific halibut that are retained as GAF, retained while on a charter vessel fishing trip in other Commission regulatory areas, or retained while fishing without the services of a guide do not accrue toward the 4-fish annual limit. For purposes of enforcing the annual limit, each angler must:

(1) Maintain a nontransferable harvest record in the angler's possession if retaining a Pacific halibut for which an annual limit has been established. Such harvest record must be maintained either on the back of the angler's State of Alaska sport fishing license or on a Sport Fishing Harvest Record Card obtained, without charge, from ADFG offices, the ADFG website, or fishing license vendors; and

(2) immediately upon retaining a Pacific halibut for which an annual limit has been established, record the date, location (IPHC Regulatory Area 3A), and species of the catch (Pacific halibut), in ink, on the harvest record; and

(3) record the information required by paragraph 3(g)(2) on any duplicate or additional sport fishing license issued to the angler or any duplicate or additional Sport Fishing Harvest Record Card obtained by the angler for all Pacific halibut previously retained during that year that were subject to the harvest record reporting requirements of this section; and

(4) carry the harvest record on his or her person while fishing for Pacific halibut.

These Regulations shall supersede all previous regulations of the Commission, and these Regulations shall be effective each succeeding year until superseded.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 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. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 248 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (83 FR 8786, March 1, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 238 mt and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is 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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 5, 2018.

The AA 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.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.