Capital planning and stress testing are two key components of the Federal Reserve's supervisory framework for large financial institutions. At the height of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Board turned to stress testing under the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP) to determine potential losses at the largest firms if the prevailing stress severely worsened and to restore confidence in the financial sector. 1 Building on the success of SCAP, the Board introduced the current stress testing regime and the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) to assess whether the largest firms have sufficient capital to continue to lend and absorb potential losses under severely adverse conditions, and to ensure that they have sound, forward-looking capital planning practices. 2

The Board adopted the capital plan rule in 2011. This rule requires certain large bank holding companies to submit an annual capital plan to the Board. 3 Under the capital plan rule as initially adopted, the Federal Reserve conducted a qualitative assessment of the strength of each bank holding company's internal capital planning process and a quantitative assessment of each bank holding company's capital adequacy. In the qualitative assessment, the Federal Reserve evaluated the extent to which the analysis underlying each bank holding company's capital plan comprehensively captured and addressed potential risks stemming from company-wide activities. In addition, the Federal Reserve evaluated the reasonableness of each bank holding company's capital plan, the assumptions and analysis underlying the plan, and the robustness of the bank holding company's capital planning process.

Under the capital plan rule, the Federal Reserve may object to the capital plan of a LISCC firm (a firm subject to the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee (LISCC) supervisory framework) or a large and complex firm, 4 if the Federal Reserve determines that (1) the firm has material unresolved supervisory issues, including but not limited to issues associated with its capital adequacy process;  5 (2) the assumptions and analysis underlying the firm's capital plan, or the firm's methodologies for reviewing its capital adequacy process, are not reasonable or appropriate;  6 or (3) the firm's capital planning process or proposed capital distributions otherwise constitute an unsafe or unsound practice, or would violate any law, regulation, Board order, directive, or condition imposed by, or written agreement with, the Board or the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank (together, qualitative objection criteria). 7 In addition to the qualitative objection criteria, the Federal Reserve can object to a firm's capital plan if the firm has not demonstrated an ability to maintain capital above each minimum regulatory capital ratio on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout the planning horizon. 8

In past CCAR exercises, the Board has publicly announced its decision to object to a firm's capital plan, along with the basis for the decision. 9 If the Federal Reserve objects to a firm's capital plan, the firm may not make any capital distributions unless the Federal Reserve indicates in writing that it does not object to such distributions. 10

In 2017, the Board adopted a rule to reduce the burden on less complex firms by removing them from the qualitative assessment of CCAR (2017 Final Rule). 11 As a result of the 2017 Final Rule, firms that are not identified as global systemically important bank holding companies and that have average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more but less than $250 billion and total nonbank assets of less than $75 billion (large and noncomplex firms) are no longer subject to the qualitative objection. 12 By the time the Board issued the 2017 Final Rule, most large and noncomplex firms were meeting or close to meeting supervisory expectations relating to capital planning practices. Because large and noncomplex firms had substantially strengthened their capital positions and improved their risk management capabilities since the inception of CCAR, the Board determined that the added regulatory burden of complying with CCAR's qualitative component outweighed its benefits for these firms. Instead, these firms were subject to regular supervisory review of their capital planning processes.

In the preamble to the 2017 Final Rule, the Board noted that the Federal Reserve would conduct its supervisory assessment of large and noncomplex firms' risk-management and capital planning practices through the regular supervisory process and targeted, horizontal assessments of particular aspects of capital planning, rather than through the annual CCAR assessment. The Board further noted that, while it would not object to the capital plans of large and noncomplex firms due to qualitative deficiencies in their capital planning process, it would incorporate an assessment of capital planning practices into its regular, ongoing supervisory activities. Under the 2017 Final Rule, the Federal Reserve may object to the capital plan of a LISCC or large and complex firm based on the qualitative objection criteria.

As it has with other bodies of regulation, the Board has reviewed the CCAR program to assess its effectiveness and to identify any areas that should be refined (CCAR review). Based in part on the CCAR review, in April 2018, the Board invited public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (2018 NPR) that would integrate its regulatory capital rule and the CCAR and stress test rules in order to simplify the capital regime applicable to firms subject to the capital plan rule. 13 As part of the 2018 NPR, the Board sought comment on the advantages and disadvantages associated with removing or adjusting the provisions that allow the Board to object to large and complex or LISCC firms' capital plans on the basis of qualitative deficiencies in the firms' capital planning process. 14

Several commenters supported eliminating the qualitative objection from the capital plan rule, noting that firms subject to the capital plan rule have raised significant amounts of capital and made significant enhancements to their capital planning and stress testing processes since the capital plan rule and CCAR processes were first adopted in 2011. Commenters argued that assessments of a firm's capital planning processes are supervisory in nature and therefore should be conducted through customary supervisory channels, and addressed through supervisory actions, rather than being subject to a potentially unexpected public qualitative objection that could result in market events that have potential adverse impacts on a firm. These commenters stated that the same approach to assessing the capital planning processes of large and noncomplex firms through the ongoing supervisory process and targeted horizontal assessments should be adopted for large and complex and LISCC firms, noting that the Board should place greater emphasis on its recent large financial institution rating proposal. 15 Two commenters argued for keeping the qualitative objection. One such commenter argued that the qualitative objection helps to ensure the integrity of the data that firms use to model the stress tests.

The original rationale for providing that the Board could object to firms' capital plans based on the qualitative objection criteria was to provide strong incentives for firms to address the significant shortcomings in risk management and capital planning practices that the Federal Reserve observed during the financial crisis. For example, many firms supervised by the Federal Reserve had substantial deficiencies in their ability to measure, monitor, and manage their risks. Since the Federal Reserve started the CCAR process in 2011, most supervised firms have significantly improved their risk management and capital planning processes. For instance, the qualitative assessment conducted as part of the 2018 CCAR cycle found that most firms either meet or are close to meeting the Federal Reserve's supervisory expectations for capital planning. These advances have resulted from firms improving the methods they use to identify their unique risks, using sound practices for identifying and addressing model deficiencies, and appropriately relying upon the results of capital stress testing to evaluate their capital positions on a forward-looking basis.

The Board continues to believe that it is important for firms to maintain strong capital planning practices that respond appropriately to changes in firms' financial conditions, business models and operating environment. The Federal Reserve has increasingly integrated the CCAR qualitative assessment into the regular supervisory process over the past several years. For example, the Board recently adopted a new rating system for large financial institutions (LFI rating system) to align with the Federal Reserve's current supervisory programs and practices for these firms. 16 The LFI rating system will assign component ratings with respect to a firm's capital planning and positions, in addition to its liquidity risk management and positions and governance and controls. The LFI rating system will give supervisors the opportunity to provide more regular, ongoing feedback to firms regarding their capital planning processes.

In recognition of the continued progress that firms have made in their risk management and capital planning practices, their significantly strengthened capital positions, 17 and changes to the Board's supervisory processes, the Board believes it is appropriate to transition away from the qualitative objection under the capital plan rule. Instead, supervisors would incorporate a robust qualitative assessment of capital planning practices into the traditional supervisory approach with respect to LISCC and large and complex firms.

The qualitative objection under the capital plan rule has provided helpful focus that has led to improvements in firms' capital planning. As a result, it would be prudent temporarily to retain the qualitative objection for those firms that only very recently became subject to the Federal Reserve's qualitative assessment. This approach would provide additional time for those firms to improve their capital planning practices before the qualitative objection is removed. Accordingly, for firms subject to the capital plan rule as of January 1, 2019, the Board is amending the capital plan rule to limit the scope of potential objections to the capital plan of a firm based on qualitative deficiencies subject to transitional arrangements. These are that the firm's capital plan has been subject to review and a potential qualitative objection by the Board for any period of four consecutive years, and the firm does not receive a qualitative objection in the fourth year of that period. If a firm receives a qualitative objection in the fourth year of that period, the firm will remain subject to a potential qualitative objection until January 1 of the year after the first year in which the firm does not receive a qualitative objection. In addition, except for a firm that receives a qualitative objection in the fourth year of the four-year period and in subsequent years, the Board would not object to the capital plan of any firm based on qualitative deficiencies after December 31, 2020. For example, if a large and complex firm first became subject to the capital plan rule in 2017 and that firm received a qualitative objection in 2020, the firm would be subject to a potential qualitative objection in 2021. If that firm does not receive a qualitative objection in 2021, the firm would no longer be subject to a potential qualitative objection under the capital plan rule. If that firm receives a qualitative objection in 2021, the firm would remain subject to a potential qualitative objection in 2022.

The Board believes that by January 2021, all LISCC and large and complex firms should have had sufficient time to improve their capital planning practices such that assessments of capital planning should be undertaken through the regular course of supervision and, when needed, targeted assessments of particular aspects of a firm's capital planning. However, if a LISCC or large and complex firm has not improved its capital planning practices by January 2021, the Board believes it is appropriate for that firm to continue to be subject to a potential qualitative objection until the firm demonstrates satisfactory capital planning practices.

If a large and complex or LISCC firm was required under the capital plan rule to submit its first capital plan to the Federal Reserve and was subject to a confidential review process, that year will be considered the first year that a firm would have been subject to a qualitative objection. The Board will consider whether a firm is a successor for purposes of the four-year period on a case-by-case basis. 18 If a bank holding company subsidiary of a U.S. intermediate holding company that was required to be established by July 1, 2016, previously participated in CCAR, 19 the U.S. intermediate holding company will not be considered the same firm or a successor firm to that bank holding company subsidiary for purposes of the four-year tolling period. If the Board previously permitted a foreign banking organization to form two or more U.S. intermediate holding companies under 12 CFR 252.153(c)(4)(ii), the Board will consider the first year that the first U.S. intermediate holding company submitted a capital plan to be the first year of the four-year period for all of the foreign banking organization's U.S. intermediate holding companies.

For example, a large and complex or LISCC firm that submitted its first capital plan pursuant to the capital plan rule beginning with the 2016 capital plan cycle would be subject to a qualitative objection of its annual capital plan through the 2019 capital plan cycle, and a large and complex or LISCC firm that submitted its first capital plan and was subject to a confidential review process in the 2017 capital plan cycle would be subject to a qualitative objection of its annual capital plan through the 2020 capital plan cycle. As a further example, if a foreign banking organization's first U.S. intermediate holding company submitted its first capital plan in 2017 and the foreign banking organization was permitted to form a second U.S. intermediate holding company that submitted its first capital plan in 2018, the first year of the four-year period would be 2017 for both U.S. intermediate holding companies.

All LISCC and large and complex firms will still be required to meet their capital requirements under stress as part of CCAR's quantitative assessment and will be subject to regular supervisory assessments that examine their capital planning processes. 20 In particular, these firms will remain subject to the same supervisory expectations as under the capital plan rule, and examiners will continue to conduct rigorous horizontal and firm-specific assessments of each firm's capital positions and capital planning, tailored to the risk profile of the firm. While much of the examination work centers on a firm's capital plan submissions, examination work would continue on a year-round basis, taking into account the firm's management of other financial risks. For example, a firm's capital rating under the LFI rating system will reflect a broad assessment of the firm's capital planning and positions. In consolidating supervisory findings into a comprehensive assessment of a firm's capital planning and positions, the Federal Reserve will take into account the materiality of a firm's outstanding and newly identified supervisory issues. In addition, any findings from supervisory stress testing, such as CCAR or similar activities, will represent inputs into the Capital Planning and Positions component rating. Firms with deficient practices would receive supervisory findings through the examination process, and would be subject to a deficient supervisory rating, and potentially an enforcement action, if those deficiencies were sufficiently material.

In addition, consistent with the current capital plan rule, if the Federal Reserve determines that a firm has unsafe or unsound capital planning processes or the financial condition of the firm is unsafe or unsound, the Federal Reserve is reserving the authority to issue publicly a capital directive, such as a directive to reduce capital distributions, and to take other supervisory or public enforcement actions, including an action to address such unsafe or unsound practices or any other conditions or violations of law. 21

The Board is issuing this final rule without the 30-day delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act. 22 The APA requires a 30-day delayed effective date, except for (1) substantive rules which grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause. 23 The Board has concluded that, because the rule relieves a restriction, the final rule is exempt from the APA's delayed effective date requirement. 24 Accordingly, the Board is publishing the final rule with an immediate effective date.

In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number is 7100-0342 for this information collection. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB. No specific comments related to the PRA were received. The final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The reporting requirements are found in sections 12 CFR 225.8.

The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of this collection of information. At any time, commenters may submit comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing burden sent to: Nuha Elmaghrabi: Federal Reserve Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Mail Stop K1-148, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, with copies of such comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) desk officer by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by facsimile to 202-3955806, Attention, Agency Desk Officer.

Proposed Revisions, With Extension for Three Years, of the Following Information Collections:

Title of Information Collection: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Associated with Regulation Y (Capital Plans).

Agency Form Number: Reg. Y-13.

OMB Control Number: 7100-0342.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents: BHCs and IHCs.

Abstract: Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225) requires large bank holding companies (BHCs) to submit capital plans to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis and to require such BHCs to request prior approval from the Federal Reserve under certain circumstances before making a capital distribution.

Current Actions: The final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The collection of information revised by this final rule is found in § 225.8 of Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225). Under § 225.8(f)(2) of the final rule, certain large and complex firms will no longer be subject to the provisions of the Board's capital plan rule whereby the Board can object to a capital plan on the basis of qualitative deficiencies in the firm's capital planning process. In comments received on the proposal, commenters expressed the view that the provision of the rule permitting the Board to object to a capital plan on the basis of qualitative deficiencies, in their view, required a firm to develop a large amount of documentation and stress test models in order to avoid risk of a public objection to its capital plan. Accordingly, the final rule is expected to reduce the recordkeeping requirements for immediately excluded large and complex firms by approximately 25 percent, or 3,000 hours for the immediately excluded large and complex firms for 2019 and 2020. In addition, the final rule is expected to reduce the recordkeeping requirements for the remaining large and complex firms by approximately 25 percent, or 3,000 hours in 2021 and thereafter.

The final rule provides that a large and complex firm that has submitted a capital plan subject to potential objection by the Board on the basis of qualitative deficiencies for any period of four consecutive years and that does not receive a qualitative objection in the fourth and final year will no longer be subject to potential objection by the Board on the basis of qualitative deficiencies. In addition, except for any firm that receives a qualitative objection, the final rule provides that the Board will no longer object to a capital plan on the basis of qualitative deficiencies beginning in 2021 and continuing thereafter.

Number of Respondents: 36.

Current Estimated Average Hours per Response: Annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(i)) (LISCC and large and complex firms), 11,920 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(c)(1)(i)) (large and noncomplex firms), 8,920 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping § (225.8(e)(1)(iii), 100 hours; annual capital planning reporting (§ 225.8(e)(1)(ii)), 80 hours; data collections reporting ((§ 225.8(e)(3)), 1,005 hours; data collections reporting (§ 225.8(e)(4)), 100 hours; review of capital plans by the Federal Reserve reporting (§ 225.8(f)(3)(i)), 16 hours; prior approval request requirements reporting (§ 225.8(g)(1), (3), & (4)), 100 hours; prior approval request requirements exceptions (§ 225.8(g)(3)(iii)(A)), 16 hours; prior approval request requirements reports (§ 225.8(g)(6)), 16 hours.

Current Estimated Annual Burden Hours: Annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(i)) (LISCC and large and complex firms), 214,560 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(i)) (large and noncomplex firms), 160,560 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(iii)), 2,800 hours; annual capital planning reporting (§ 225.8(e)(1)(ii)), 2,240 hours; data collections reporting ((§ 225.8(e)(3)(i)- (vi)), 36,180 hours; data collections reporting (§ 225.8(e)(4)), 1,000 hours; review of capital plans by the Federal Reserve reporting (§ 225.8(f)(3)(i)), 32 hours; prior approval request requirements reporting (§ 225.8(g)(1), (3), & (4)), 2,600 hours; prior approval request requirements exceptions (§ 225.8(g)(3)(iii)(A)), 32 hours; prior approval request requirements reports (§ 225.8(g)(6)), 32 hours.

Approved Revisions Only Change in Estimated Average Hours per Response: Annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(i)), 3,000 hours.

Approved Revisions Only Change in Estimated Annual Burden Hours: Annual capital planning reporting (§ 225.8(e)(1)(ii)), 54,000 hours.

Approved Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: Annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(i)) (LISCC and large and complex firms), 160,560 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(i)) (large and noncomplex firms), 160,560 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (§ 225.8(e)(1)(iii)), 2,800 hours; annual capital planning reporting (§ 225.8(e)(1)(ii)), 2,240 hours; data collections reporting ((§ 225.8(e)(3)(i)-(vi)), 36,180 hours; data collections reporting (§ 225.8(e)(4)), 1,000 hours; review of capital plans by the Federal Reserve reporting (§ 225.8(f)(3)(i)), 32 hours; prior approval request requirements reporting (§ 225.8(g)(1), (3), & (4)), 2,600 hours; prior approval request requirements exceptions (§ 225.8(g)(3)(iii)(A)), 32 hours; prior approval request requirements reports (§ 225.8(g)(6)), 32 hours.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., (RFA), requires an agency to consider whether the rules it finalizes will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 25 The RFA generally requires that an agency prepare and make available an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking and that an agency prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in connection with promulgating a final rule. A FRFA issued by the Board must contain (1) a statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected. 26

The Board solicited public common on this rule in a notice of proposed rulemaking and has considered the potential impact of this rule on small entities in accordance with section 604 of the RFA. 27 Based on the Board's analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As discussed, the Board is issuing this final to transition away from the qualitative objection under the capital plan rule towards greater reliance on the Board's general supervisory processes.

The final rule would change the scope of firms with capital plans subject to potential objection by the Board under the capital plan rule for non-quantitative reasons. The capital plan rule applies to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board that becomes subject to the capital planning requirements pursuant to a rule or order of the Board, and to U.S. intermediate holding companies established pursuant to the Board's Regulation YY. This rule narrows the scope of banking organizations subject to potential objection of their capital plans by the Board under the capital plan rule. As a result, this rule does not apply to any small entities.

Commenters did not raise any issues in response to the IRFA. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to the proposed rule.

The Board estimates that approximately 18 banking organizations were subject to potential objection to their capital plans for non-quantitative reasons prior to this rule. As a result of this rule, the Board estimates that approximately 6 banking organization will be subject to potential objection to their capital plans for non-quantitative reasons. None of these banking organizations would qualify as a small banking entity for the purposes of the RFA.

The Board does not believe that this final rule will have a significant negative economic impact on any small entities and therefore believes that there are no significant alternatives to the final rule that would reduce the impact on small entities.

The Board does not believe that the final rule imposes any reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

The Board does not believe that this final rule will have a significant economic impact on any small entities.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Federal banking agencies to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of this requirement, the Board has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner, and did not receive any comments on the use of plain language.

Accordingly, the Board amends 12 CFR part 225 as follows:

Section 111 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5321) (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) established the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The purposes of the Council under section 112 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5322) are (A) to identify risks to the financial stability of the United States that could arise from the material financial distress or failure, or ongoing activities, of large, interconnected bank holding companies or nonbank financial companies, or that could arise outside the financial services marketplace; (B) to promote market discipline, by eliminating expectations on the part of shareholders, creditors, and counterparties of such companies that the Government will shield them from losses in the event of failure; and (C) to respond to emerging threats to the stability of the United States financial system.

The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes the Council to determine that certain nonbank financial companies will be subject to supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) and prudential standards. On April 11, 2012, the Council issued interpretive guidance (the “2012 Interpretive Guidance”) regarding the manner in which the Council makes determinations under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as an appendix to a final rule (together, the “2012 Rule and Interpretive Guidance”). The 2012 Rule and Interpretive Guidance were codified at part 1310 to title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Council is modifying the rule text in the 2012 Final Rule and Interpretive Guidance by adding a new section (12 CFR 1310.3) stating that the Council shall not amend or rescind the interpretive guidance set forth in appendix A to part 1310 without providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment.

The Council is adopting this rule pursuant to its authority under section 111(e)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes the Council to adopt such rules as may be necessary for the conduct of the business of the Council, and states that such rules shall be rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice for purposes of section 553 of title 5, United States Code. This new section is a rule of agency procedure, and is therefore not subject to the requirement to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment under the Administrative Procedure Act. 1 As a result, the Council is adopting it in final form. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

Contemporaneous with the publication of this final rule, the Council is separately publishing proposed interpretive guidance that would replace the 2012 Interpretive Guidance. That proposal includes a request for public comment.

In order to promote the Council's engagement with market participants and other interested parties, the Council is adding a new section to the rules referenced above, stating that the Council shall not amend or rescind the interpretive guidance set forth in appendix A to the rules without providing the public with notice and an opportunity to comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Council amends 12 CFR part 1310 as follows:

On November 26, 2018, at 83 FR 60376, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to MDHI Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369FF, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 500N, and 600N helicopters with a Helicopter Technology Company, LLC (HTC), MRB part number 369A1100, 369D21100, 369D21102, 369D21120, 369D21121, 369D21123, 500P2100, or 500P2300 installed. The NPRM was prompted by reports of two operators finding cracks on an HTC-manufactured MRB and proposed to require repetitively inspecting each MRB trim tab for a crack. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of an MRB and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

In the “Costs of Compliance” section, the NPRM stated an incorrect number of U.S.-registered helicopters affected by this AD and subsequently, an incorrect estimated cost of the inspection for the U.S. fleet. We have corrected the cost information in this Final rule.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We reviewed HTC Mandatory Service Bulletin Notice No. 2100-9, dated May 25, 2017 (SB 2100-9), which contains procedures for inspecting each MRB for a crack in an area adjacent to the inboard edge of the MRB trim tab.

We also reviewed MD Helicopters Service Bulletin No. SB369D-221, SB369E-119, SB369F-106, SB369H-257, SB500N-057, and SB600N-069, each dated April 2, 2018. This service information specifies inspecting the MRBs for cracks near the trim tab by following the instructions in SB 2100-9.

The service information specifies procedures for inspecting each MRB for nicks, gouges, and scratches. This AD does not, as the unsafe condition concerns a crack in the MRB.

We estimate that this AD affects 730 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Inspecting one MRB requires about 0.1 work-hour, for an estimated cost per helicopter of $43 for the 705 MDHI Model 369-series and 500N helicopters (5 MRBs), $51 for the 25 MDHI Model 600N helicopters (6 MRBs), and a total estimated cost of $31,590 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing one MRB requires about 3 work-hours and parts cost about $13,000 for a total estimated cost of $13,255 per MRB.

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 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 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.

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:

On September 7, 2018 at 83 FR 45364, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, and EC135T3 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require, within 90 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 180 hours TIS, replacing the retaining ring and inspecting the elastomeric energy absorber for a permanent compression set, and if necessary, replacing the elastomeric energy absorber before the next hoist operation. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent detachment of a hook from a hoist cable resulting in in-flight failure of the hoist, which could result in injury to persons being lifted.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2017-0199, dated October 11, 2017, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC135T3, EC635P2+, EC635P3, EC635T1, EC635T2+, and EC635T3 helicopters. EASA advises of a report of a hook separating from the hoist cable. According to EASA, an investigation determined that failure of the internal retaining ring combined with a permanent compression set of the elastomeric energy absorber caused the separation. EASA states that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to the detachment of an external load or person from the hoist, possibly resulting in personal injury or injury to persons on the ground. The EASA AD consequently requires repetitive inspections of the hook assembly and replacement of the retaining ring.

EASA considers its AD an interim measure and states that further AD action may follow.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, 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 and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval holder is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

The EASA AD requires corrective actions in terms of months in service. This AD requires compliance within 90 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 180 hours TIS. The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC635P2+, EC635P3, EC635T1, EC635T2+, and EC635T3 helicopters. This AD does not because these model helicopters have no FAA type certificate.

We reviewed Goodrich Service Bulletin No. 44301-10-17, Revision 4, dated July 26, 2017 (SB 44301-10-17). SB 44301-10-17 is attached as an appendix to Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB EC135-85A-069, Revision 0, dated August 2, 2017 (ASB EC135-85A-069). SB 443301-10-17 is incorporated by reference in this AD. ASB EC135-85A-069 is not incorporated by reference in this AD. This service information specifies an initial and repetitive inspections of the hook assembly and replacement of the retaining ring. If the inspections of elastomeric energy absorber detect a permanent compression set, this service information also specifies replacing the elastomeric energy absorber.

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.

We estimate that this AD affects 278 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Inspecting the hoist cable hook assembly and replacing the retaining ring requires 0.5 work-hour and parts are minimal for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $11,954 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing an elastomeric energy absorber requires 0.5 work-hour and parts cost $2,152 for an estimated cost of $2,195 per helicopter.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

(2) 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:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 97-26-03, Amendment 39-10246 (62 FR 65750, December 16, 1997) (AD 97-26-03) and add a new AD. AD 97-26-03 applied to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters. AD 97-26-03 required visual inspections for cracks in the ribbed area of the M/R flange and replacing the M/R mast if a crack is found.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2018 (83 FR 46426). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2017-0193, dated September 29, 2017 (EASA AD 2017-0193), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2017-0193 superseded AD 97-276, effective September 25, 1997, issued by Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters. EASA advises that reinforced M/R mast part number (P/N) 4639 305 095, which is part of M/R mast assembly P/N 4639 205 016, is not affected by the unsafe condition. EASA AD 2017-0193 retains the repetitive inspection requirements of the LBA AD but only for helicopters with M/R mast P/N 4639 305 002.

Since we issued AD 97-26-03, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Helicopters changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH. This AD reflects that change and updates the contact information to obtain service documentation. Additionally, the FAA's Aircraft Certification Service has changed its organizational structure. The new structure replaces product directorates with functional divisions. We have revised some of the office titles and nomenclature throughout this AD to reflect the new organizational changes. Additional information about the new structure can be found in the Notice published on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34564).

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

The EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters if a crack is found on the flange for applicable instructions, whereas this AD requires replacing the M/R mast with an airworthy M/R mast before further flight.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB MBB-BK117-10-114, Revision 1, dated July 28, 2017. This service information specifies visually inspecting the area of the holes on the underside of the flange for cracks, especially in the ribbed area between the holes, and if cracks are found, contacting Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH before further flight for advice on how to proceed. This service information applies to helicopters with M/R mast assembly P/N 4639 205 011.

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.

We also reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB MBB-BK117-10-114, dated August 27, 1997, which specifies visually inspecting the area of the holes on the underside of the flange for cracks, especially in the ribbed area between the holes, and if cracks are found, contacting Eurocopter Helicopter Deutschland GmbH before further flight for advice on how to proceed. This service information applies to helicopters with M/R mast assembly P/N 4639 205 011 or 4639 205 016.

We estimate that this AD affects 62 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Visually inspecting the flange for a crack requires 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of about $21 per helicopter and $1,302 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing the M/R mast requires 10 work-hours and parts cost $50,000 for an estimated cost of $50,850 per helicopter.

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 have 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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that a regulatory distinction is required, 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:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during July, August, and September 2018, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the office of the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book) at: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/default.htm .

Piedmont Animal Health, 204 Muirs Chapel Rd., Suite 200, Greensboro, NC 27410 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, newly approved ANADA 200-608 for BAYTRIL (enrofloxacin) Soft Chewable Tablets to Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201. Following this change of sponsorship, Piedmont Animal Health is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, it will not be added to the list of sponsors of approved applications in § 510.600(c) (21 CFR 510.600(c)).

Cronus Pharma LLC, 2 Tower Center Blvd., Suite 1101, East Brunswick, NJ 08816 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following applications to Cronus Pharma Specialities India Private Ltd., Sy No: 99/1, M/s GMR Hyderabad Aviation SEZ L, Mamidipalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga, Hyderabad, Telangana 501218, India:

Following this change of sponsorship, Cronus Pharma LLC is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, it will be removed from the list of sponsors of approved applications in § 510.600(c). As a new sponsor of approved applications, Cronus Pharma Specialities India Private Ltd. will be added to § 510.600(c); however, as the drug labeler code was not changed, no further amendments are necessary.

Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following applications to Bimeda Animal Health Ltd., 1B The Herbert Building, The Park, Carrickmines, Dublin 18, Ireland:

Following this change of sponsorship, Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd. is no longer the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly, it will be removed from the list of sponsors of approved applications in § 510.600(c) (21 CFR 510.600(c)). As a new sponsor of approved applications, Bimeda Animal Health Ltd. will be added to § 510.600(c) and the regulations amended to reflect this action. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these changes of sponsorship.

Elanco US Inc., 2500 Innovation Way, Greenfield, IN 46140, has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NADA 140-939 for use of RUMENSIN (monensin) and TYLAN (tylosin phosphate) Type A medicated articles in the manufacture of combination drug Type C medicated cattle feeds because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

Also, Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc., 10077 S 134th St., Omaha, NE 68138 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANADA 200-600 for WORMX (pyrantel pamoate) Flavored Tablets because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA gave notice that approval of NADA 140-939 and ANADA 200-600, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective March 25, 2019. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these actions.

In addition, we are reformatting the regulations to present the approved conditions of use of halofuginone, monensin, and salinomycin in tabular format in the respective named sections of 21 CFR part 558. This action is being taken to improve the readability of the regulations.

This final rule is issued under section 512(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.360b(i)), which requires Federal Register publication of “notice[s] . . . effective as a regulation,” of the conditions of use of approved new animal drugs. This rule sets forth technical amendments to the regulations to codify recent actions on approved new animal drug applications and corrections to improve the accuracy of the regulations, and as such does not impose any burden on regulated entities.

Although denominated a rule pursuant to the FD&C Act, this document does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3) because it is a “rule of particular applicability” under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A). Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Likewise, this is not a rule subject to Executive Order 12866, which defines a rule as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect, which the agency intends to have the force and effect of law, that is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency.”

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, 526, 529, 556, and 558 are amended as follows:

Elanco US Inc., 2500 Innovation Way, Greenfield, IN 46140, has requested that FDA withdraw approval of NADA 140-939 for use of RUMENSIN (monensin) and TYLAN (tylosin phosphate) Type A medicated articles in the manufacture of combination drug Type C medicated cattle feeds because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

Also, Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc., 10077 S 134th St., Omaha, NE 68138 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANADA 200-600 for WORMX (pyrantel pamoate) Flavored Tablets because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADA 140-939 and ANADA 200-600, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective March 25, 2019.

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of these applications.

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Seaway Navigation; and, Information and Reports. These changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations.

Regulatory Notices: Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.Regulations.gov .

The joint regulations will become effective in Canada on March 30, 2019.

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of who are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and have determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.

This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.

Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is amending 33 CFR part 401 as follows:

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls (Schedule of Fees and Charges in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions.

The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by the SLSDC and the SLSMC. The SLSDC is revising 33 CFR 402.12, “Schedule of tolls”, to reflect the fees and charges levied by the SLSMC in Canada beginning in the 2019 navigation season. With one exception, the changes affect the tolls for commercial vessels and are applicable only in Canada. The collection of tolls by the SLSDC on commercial vessels transiting the U.S. locks is waived by law (33 U.S.C. 988a(a)).

The SLSDC is amending 33 CFR 402.12, “Schedule of tolls”, to increase the minimum charge per vessel per lock for full or partial transit of the Seaway from $28.29 to $28.57. This charge is for vessels that are not pleasure craft or subject in Canada to the tolls under items 1 and 2 of the Tariff. This increase is due to higher operating costs at the locks.

Regulatory Notices: Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.

I certify this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et reg.) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

The Corporation has analyzed this rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.

This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.

Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation amends 33 CFR part 402 as follows:

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

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on November 23, 2018 (83 FR 59350)  1 EPA proposed to approve the State's redesignation request. The details of Arkansas' submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM. EPA did not receive any relevant adverse comments on the proposed action. 2

As noted in our NPRM, on April 20, 2018, Arkansas submitted a request to change the EPA's previous designation and redesignate Independence County from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 SO 2 primary NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed the modeling provided by the State with its redesignation request and finds that it is acceptable for assessing the attainment status of Independence County, and that predicted ambient SO 2 concentrations are below the 2010 SO 2 primary NAAQS of 196.4 μg/m3, or 75 ppb.

The EPA is approving Arkansas' April 20, 2018, request to change the EPA's previous designation and redesignate Independence County from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 SO 2 primary NAAQS.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment/unclassifiable does not in and of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, this action merely redesignates an area to attainment/unclassifiable and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this action:

• Is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because it is exempt under Executive Order 12866;

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

• Is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

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

• Is not subject because it does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks;

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

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards;

• Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and

• Does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because no tribal lands are located within the Area and the redesignation does not create new requirements. The EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

On March 31, 2017, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a final complete program revision application seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final decision that ODEQ's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. EPA will continue to implement and enforce Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) provisions for which the State is not authorized. For a list of rules that become effective with this Final Rule, please see the NPRM published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 49900, October 3, 2018.

EPA received comments from five individuals regarding EPA's proposal to authorize revisions to Oklahoma's hazardous waste regulations. In accordance with 40 CFR part 271, EPA provides the following responses to comments regarding authorization of Oklahoma's requested RCRA subtitle C program revision:

Two commenters raised issues that are completely unrelated to this rulemaking and will not be addressed. An additional two commenters raised issues about a separate rulemaking involving a RCRA subtitle D program that is separate from this rulemaking and was addressed in our rulemaking approving Oklahoma's Coal Combustion Residual State program. See, 83 FR 30356; June 28, 2018. See also, Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities 80 FR 21302; April 17, 2015. Those issues are outside the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, one of the commenters stated that EPA should vacate approval of the Oklahoma program because Oklahoma has a significant budget crisis and does not have adequate funds, staff or expertise to take on the task. While it seems that this question is about Oklahoma's Coal Ash program referenced above, and not this revision to Oklahoma's RCRA subtitle C program, we speak to this concern. We believe Oklahoma has the resources and staff expertise to adequately implement the RCRA subtitle C program. This is supported by EPA's oversight and the end-of-year review conducted on September 26, 2018. Oklahoma's overall progress, accomplishment of Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) workplan commitments, and achievement of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals were discussed and evaluated by EPA. See the FY 18 RCRA Hazardous Waste Program End-of-Year Report, dated October 24, 2018.

One commenter indicated that states should not be allowed to have regulations that are more stringent or broader in scope than those of the national government—that the rules should be uniform across the country. RCRA directly addresses this issue, under RCRA section 3009 and 40 CFR 271.1(i), states are not precluded from having requirements that are broader in scope or requirements that are more stringent. In this rule, we are not making any broader in scope or more stringent determinations. See, Section G of the October 3, 2018 proposed rule, there are no state requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than the federal requirements for which Oklahoma is seeking authorization. This same commenter stated that the proposed rule would allow Oklahoma officials to administer and regulate Subtitle C in Indian Country and that Native American land is considered sovereign land and should absolutely not be under the jurisdiction of state governments. EPA responds to this comment as follows: Nothing in this rulemaking authorizes Oklahoma to administer RCRA subtitle C programs in Indian country. This commenter also raised concerns about Oklahoma's proposed change that classifies fossil fuels as nonhazardous waste and that this waste needs to be properly disposed of to slow climate change. Our response is as follows: We believe the commenter is referring to a clarification to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) that wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels are not hazardous waste. Oklahoma is required to revise their State RCRA subtitle C program to conform to the Federal rule change. This change has nothing to do with disposal of fossil fuel residual, as noted above this is regulated by a separate RCRA subtitle D program and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Based on the proposal, administrative record and EPA's responses to the comments received regarding the proposed authorization of the State of Oklahoma hazardous waste management program, EPA is granting final authorization of the state's program. EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003 which include, among others, authority to: (1) Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state has taken its own action, (2) enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and (3) perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports.

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 Regulation (CFR). We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272 subpart LL for this authorization of Oklahoma's program changes until a later date. In this authorization application, the EPA is not codifying the rules documented in this Federal Register action.

This final authorization revises Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste management program pursuant to RCRA section 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by state law. For further information on how this authorization complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions, please see the proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register (83 FR 49900, October 3, 2018).

The Property at the Site contains a two-story commercial building and a warehouse and is bounded on the west by an amusement facility and fuel storage tanks, on the south by Old Vestal Road, on the east by Commerce Road, and on the north by railroad tracks. The Off-Property area extends westward toward the Susquehanna River, which is located approximately 2,500 feet from the Property.

EPA and the State of New York, through NYSDEC, have determined that no further response action under CERCLA is needed for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property, as defined above, and is proposing to delete this portion of the Site from the NPL. See the above-referenced docket for more information, including a figure of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property.

An approximately three-acre portion of the bedrock aquifer underlying the Property, bounded to the east by the western walls of the warehouse and former manufacturing building, to the south and west by the Property line, and to the north by a line extending from the northwest corner of the warehouse to the western property line (hereinafter, “Retained Portion of the Property”), as well as the overburden and bedrock aquifers in the Off-Property area, would remain on the NPL.

The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR part 300 (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of releases that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. The releases on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on NPL. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, and as clarified in 60 FR 55466, a site (or portion thereof) deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions at the site warrant such actions.

EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final NOPD to remove the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites (or portions thereof) from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV demonstrates how the deletion criteria have been met. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Property's overburden soil and overburden groundwater and an approximately 9.7-acre portion of the bedrock aquifer underlying the Property from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release of hazardous substances poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property:

(1) EPA consulted with the State of New York prior to developing this direct final NOPD and the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete (NOIPD) also published in the “Proposed Rules” section of this issue of the Federal Register .

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this NOPD and the parallel NOIPD prior to their publication today, and the State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on the partial deletion of a portion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final NOPD, a notice of the availability of the parallel NOIPD is being published in a major local newspaper, the Press and Sun Bulletin. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the NOIPD of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.

(4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the Docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final NOPD before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and, if appropriate, continue with the deletion process based on the NOIPD and the comments received.

Deletion of a site (or portion thereof) from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site (or portion thereof) from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA's management of sites. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides the Agency's rationale for deleting the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.

The Site (NYD002232957) is in Vestal, a regionally important industrial center adjacent to Binghamton, New York in the Susquehanna River basin. The Property, which occupies approximately 12.7 acres, is bordered by Commerce Road and several warehouses and light industrial buildings to the east, Old Vestal Road and several residences to the south, an amusement facility and fuel storage tanks to the west, and railroad tracks to the north.

The Property and the area downgradient ( i.e., to the west) of the Property is zoned industrial/commercial. With the strong presence of commercial and industrial infrastructure, future land use is anticipated to remain industrial/commercial.

The Property is located approximately half-way down the westerly face of a hill that slopes gently toward the Susquehanna River. Consistent with this, EPA field observations and examination of topographic contours indicate that the overland flow of surface water across the Property is to the west, controlled by a series of conduits and drainage ditches which direct the flow to the river, located approximately a half mile to the north and west. The area where the Site is located is not known to contain or impact any ecologically-significant habitat, wetlands, agricultural land, or historic or landmark sites.

The area has two distinct groundwater aquifers. The upper or overburden aquifer is comprised of material consisting mainly of till and is approximately 20 to 40 feet thick. In addition, fill material associated with extensive grading on-Site for storage and parking spaces ranges from zero to six feet in thickness. Groundwater is encountered within the upper aquifer unit six to twenty feet below ground surface (bgs). The lower or bedrock aquifer consists of shale with a weathered zone seven- to ten-feet thick. The primary permeability of this material is low, but the secondary permeability is much higher. Fractures along the horizontal bedding planes and vertical joints in the shale allow for groundwater flow.

Groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Site is primarily toward the west and northwest. There are no private drinking water wells in the vicinity of the Site. All residents are supplied with drinking water by the Vestal municipal well fields. One of these well fields is located downgradient of the Site near the river. None of the wells in the Vestal well fields are affected by Site-related contamination.

Eight groundwater extraction wells were drilled on-Site between 1983 and 1984 by former Site owner/operators. These six-inch diameter wells were installed with steel casing through the till overburden formation and then finished as open bedrock holes to an average depth of 300 feet bgs. The wells provided cooling water for the operators of a pipe-production process, which was then discharged to surface water at a permitted effluent-discharge point. An effluent sample collected at the Site by NYSDEC in 1984 to verify discharge-permit compliance found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that were not covered under the permit. Further investigations resulted in the conclusion that the contamination was coming from the bedrock groundwater beneath the Site. NYSDEC also determined that there were soil source areas in the overburden affecting groundwater in both the overburden and bedrock geologic units.

Sampling was conducted by EPA in 1985 to evaluate the Site for inclusion on the NPL. Groundwater monitoring revealed elevated concentrations of VOCs in the overburden soil and bedrock groundwater. Based on the results of this monitoring, the Site was placed on the NPL in June 1986 (51 FR 21054).

Following the listing of the Site on the NPL in 1986, a remedial investigation (RI) was performed. The RI revealed numerous VOCs in the overburden and bedrock groundwater and in overburden soils. The RI report, along with a human-health risk assessment (HHRA) and a feasibility study (FS) report, was completed in 1991.

The HHRA concluded that an unacceptable risk existed for hypothetical future residents' consumption of groundwater, driven primarily by VOCs. The hypothetical future use of both the overburden and bedrock aquifers for drinking-water purposes resulted in unacceptable risk. The ecological risk assessment concluded that no habitats or species of special concern would likely be affected by Site-related contaminants.

Following the completion of the RI/FS, a record of decision (ROD) was signed in March 1992 (1992 ROD). The 1992 ROD, also referred to as the Operable Unit One (OU1) ROD, addressed contamination present in the overburden and bedrock aquifers by extraction and treatment via air stripping. The remedial action objectives (RAOs) specified in the 1992 ROD were:

• Restore the aquifer as a potential source of drinking water by reducing contaminant levels to below the New York State and Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). See Table 1, below.

• Reduce or eliminate the potential for off-Site migration of contaminants.

The 1992 ROD remedy included the extraction and treatment via air stripping of contaminated bedrock and overburden groundwater.

An investigation to assess suspected elevated lead concentrations in Site soil and sediment did not reveal elevated lead concentrations in any Site media. Accordingly, a no action ROD for these soils and sediments was signed in March 1993.

The results of a preliminary remedial design (RD) investigation indicated that overburden groundwater and subsurface soils were contaminated at levels much greater than those detected during prior investigations; the contaminated subsurface soils were subsequently determined to be source areas. In addition, the pre-RD investigation concluded that the overburden-formation till was of relatively low-permeability with an extremely-low groundwater yield. Therefore, the extraction of contaminated groundwater from the overburden (the remedy selected for the overburden in the 1992 ROD) was determined not to be feasible.

An alternative approach to address the contaminated groundwater was determined to be necessary. In addition, EPA determined that the source areas in the overburden soil needed to be addressed. A ROD was signed in July 1997 (1997 ROD or OU3 ROD) which addressed source contamination present above and below the water table in the overburden in three areas of the Site. Additionally, based on the tight overburden formation, resulting in extremely low groundwater yields (approximately 0.1 gallon per minute), consistent with EPA and New York State guidance, the overburden aquifer is not usable. Therefore, the 1997 ROD also concluded that Federal and state MCLs are not applicable with respect to the overburden aquifer. As the bedrock aquifer is usable, Federal and state MCLs remain applicable with respect to that aquifer.

The RAOs specified in the 1997 ROD were:

• Mitigate the potential for contaminants to migrate from the soil into the overburden aquifer and reduce soil contamination to meet the soil cleanup objectives identified in NYSDEC's Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum No. 94-HWR-4046, January 1994.

• mitigate the potential for contaminants to migrate from the overburden aquifer into the bedrock aquifer.

• reduce or eliminate the threat to public health and the environment posed by groundwater contamination by remediating groundwater to MCLs for VOCs.

• reduce or eliminate the potential for off-Site migration of contaminants.

The 1997 ROD included the excavation of unsaturated- and saturated-overburden soils in three areas of the Site and treatment of VOCs using low-temperature thermal desorption; the extraction of contaminated groundwater from the bedrock aquifer through the existing production-well network until MCLs are achieved; remediation of contaminated overburden groundwater through natural attenuation processes, including chemical degradation, dilution, and dispersion, at the Property and in downgradient areas.

In August 2018, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was issued to document EPA's determination to incorporate into the remedy an institutional control to address the potential for vapor intrusion should the occupancy of the Property buildings change in the future or if there is new construction in Property or Off-Property areas.

Negotiations between EPA and a group of potentially responsible parties (hereinafter, PRP Group) resulted in an agreement embodied in an October 1998 Consent Decree to implement the RD, construction, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedy selected in the 1997 ROD.

The RD of the soil source-removal excavation and treatment was initiated in 1999 by Vertex Engineering Service, Inc. (Vertex), the contractor for the PRP Group. Following the completion of the plans and specifications, Vertex initiated the implementation of the soil remedy. The excavation, treatment, and backfilling of more than 10,000 cubic yards of VOC-contaminated soil was performed from 2000 to 2001. Post-excavation soil sampling results indicated that residual levels of VOCs in soils were below the target cleanup levels.

The 1997 ROD formalized a remedial strategy to address the source areas and groundwater in the overburden and provided for the continued extraction and treatment of contaminated bedrock groundwater using the existing production wells. After eliminating a conduit of contamination from the overburden into the bedrock by sealing one of the production wells in 1996, the rebuilding and upgrade of the existing bedrock extraction wells was completed in 2001. This work included installing new pumps, piping, wiring, and instrumentation for the existing production-well system. A combination of logistical circumstances, primarily, the decision by the operator of the Property to discontinue the use of the extracted groundwater as cooling water in its pipe manufacturing process resulted in the system being shut down in 2003. In 2005, after the completion of negotiations between EPA, the PRP Group, and the property owner, carbon treatment was added to the bedrock-groundwater extraction and treatment system, and operation of the system resumed. The Property owner operated the system on behalf of the PRP Group until May 2014, when the system, which had treated the groundwater to asymptotic levels above the MCLs, became inoperable. EPA is currently investigating alternatives to the extraction and treatment of the bedrock groundwater in the Retained Portion of the Property.

To monitor the effect of both the overburden-soil source removal and the ten years of bedrock-groundwater extraction and treatment, long-term groundwater monitoring in both the overburden and bedrock aquifers is being performed annually. As noted above, because of the tight overburden formation, resulting in extremely-low groundwater yields, the overburden aquifer is not usable. Therefore, pursuant to the 1997 ROD, Federal and state groundwater standards are not applicable with respect to the overburden aquifer. With respect to the bedrock aquifer, groundwater VOC contaminant levels are below the 1997 ROD-specified Federal and state MCLs for Site-related constituents within the area of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property (see Table 2, below).

O&M for the bedrock-groundwater extraction-and-treatment system component of OU1 began in 2005. Per the O&M Manual, O&M for OU1 included inspection/maintenance procedures, schedules for proper operation, and influent and effluent monitoring to evaluate remedy performance. O&M of the system continued through 2014, at which point the system became inoperable and was turned off to explore alternatives to the extraction and treatment of the bedrock groundwater. The long-term monitoring components of the overburden (OU3) and bedrock (OU1) aquifers began in 2001 and has continued since that time.

With respect to institutional controls (ICs), the 1997 ROD called for the implementation of ICs to restrict the installation and use of groundwater wells at and downgradient of the Property until groundwater quality has been restored. The on-Property ICs were implemented through a March 2006 Declaration of Easements, Covenants and Restrictions (“deed restriction”) for the Property. As noted above, in August 2018 an ESD was issued to document EPA's determination to incorporate into the remedy an IC relating to vapor intrusion; toward this end, the Town of Vestal has agreed to notify EPA when there is a change in use relative to the Property and Off-Property areas.

With respect to areas downgradient of the Property, drinking water is provided by public supplies for the entire town. Town of Vestal code sec. 24-73.d requires all development (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) to connect to the public drinking-water supply system in all areas of the Town where the public supply is available. The Property and the plume downgradient of the Property are in an area where the public drinking-water supply system is available. Further, the installation of any other groundwater-withdrawal well is restricted within areas of the Town designated as an “aquifer district” (Town of Vestal code sec. 23-518.a-c). The Property and the plume area downgradient of the Property are located within an “aquifer district.”

Contamination remains in the groundwater underlying the Property and in Off-Property areas above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), EPA is required to conduct a review of the remedy at least once every five years. Five-year reviews were conducted in 2006, 2011, and 2016. While the most recent five-year review concluded that there are no completed exposure pathways, a short-term protectiveness finding was made for the Site in light of recommendations that more information was needed relative to the off-Property overburden groundwater and the evaluation of alternatives to the existing extraction and treatment of bedrock groundwater remedy needed to be completed. Neither of these recommendations relate to the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property.

The next five-year review is scheduled for 2021.

Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as required pursuant to CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. As part of the three remedy selection processes, the public was invited to comment on the proposed remedies. All other documents and information that EPA relied on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for the public to review at the information repositories identified above.

Because of the tight overburden formation, resulting in extremely-low groundwater yields, the overburden aquifer is not usable. Therefore, as reflected in the 1997 ROD, Federal and state MCLs are not applicable with respect to the overburden aquifer.

Because of the completion of all appropriate response actions in the overburden soil and overburden groundwater on the Property and because the bedrock aquifer underlying the Property outside the Retained Portion of the Property is not contaminated, and because there are appropriate institutional controls in place, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that these areas no longer pose a threat to public health or the environment. EPA and NYSDEC have concluded that this NOPD, which pertains only to the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property, may proceed. The Retained Portion of the Property will remain on the NPL, as well as the Off-Property portions of the Site's overburden and bedrock aquifers. Because contamination remains in both the Property and Off-Property overburden and bedrock groundwater, groundwater monitoring, periodic IC verification, and five-year reviews will still be required, as will O&M activities, as necessary.

All the completion requirements for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property have been met, as described in the September 2001 soil Remedial Action Report, the September 2001 Preliminary Close-Out Report, and the 2006, 2011, and 2016 five-year review reports. The implemented remedy has achieved the degree of cleanup or protection specified in the OU1 and OU3 RODs for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property. The selected remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property are consistent with EPA policy and guidance. No further Superfund response for the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property is needed to protect human health and the environment. The State of New York, in an August 9, 2018 letter from the NYSDEC, concurred with the proposed partial deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL.

The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if all appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and no further response action is appropriate. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through NYSDEC, believes that this criterion for the deletion of the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property has been met in that the soil on and the groundwater beneath the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property no longer pose a threat to public health or the environment. Consequently, EPA is deleting the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available in the Docket.

EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through NYSDEC, has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed at the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property and that these media no longer pose a threat to public health or the environment. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Proposed Deleted Portion of the Property from the NPL. An approximately three-acre portion of the southwest On-Property bedrock aquifer (west of the former manufacturing building and warehouse and south of this area to Old Vestal Road) will remain on the NPL, as will the Off-Property portion of the Site's overburden and bedrock aquifers. Because contamination remains in both On-Property and Off-Property overburden and bedrock groundwater, groundwater monitoring and five-year reviews will still be required, as will O&M activities, as necessary. The partial deletion does not preclude future action under CERCLA. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking this action without prior publication. This action will be effective May 13, 2019 unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 12, 2019. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final NOPD before the effective date of the partial deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and, if no comments were received which warrant a change in EPA's decision with respect to the partial deletion, EPA will continue with the deletion process on the basis of the NOIPD and the comments received. In such a case, there will be no additional opportunity to comment.

For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order, IB Docket No. 98-96; FCC 18-186, adopted December 18, 2018 and released December 21, 2018. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may be obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System by entering the IB docket number 98-96 and is available on the FCC's website at http://www.fcc.gov.

1. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopts a proposal to transition the functions and duties performed by the FCC as an accounting authority. The Commission refers to this default function as the accounting authority of last resort, and it finds that the public interest would be better served by relying upon private accounting authorities to perform the accounting authority of last resort function. The Commission notes that such private authorities are certified under part 3 of the Commission's rules and operate under the Commission's regulatory oversight.

2. The Commission concludes that the record in the proceeding supports a renewed decision to withdraw as the accounting authority of last resort and to provide users with a definitive timeframe within which to transition to a new accounting authority of their choosing. All commenters supported the Commission's proposal to withdraw completely as an accounting authority. The unanimous support is a change from 1999, and it reflects that, in 2018, not only are there sufficient private accounting authorities available to settle accounts, but there also has been a significant reduction in reliance on the FCC as an accounting authority. Given this reduction in reliance on the FCC and the reduced volume of customers who may be affected when the Commission withdraws as accounting authority, as well as the presence of a functioning market for this service that will mitigate the adverse impact of the FCC's withdrawal, the Commission finds that the best alternative is for its withdrawal as an accounting authority. The Commission continues to believe that it remains the basic responsibility of the user, whether a private or governmental entity, to designate an accounting authority to handle its calls.

3. The Commission is not persuaded that it should name COMSAT as the default accounting authority of last resort. No party other than COMSAT urged the FCC to take such a step; in fact, other commenters, notably the Coast Guard, supported the Commission's proposal to require users to select a new accounting authority, provided the Commission ensures users are given adequate notice and time to put in place arrangements with another accounting authority. The Commissions finds no record support from users for a wholesale transfer of the settlement of the accounts of terminal holders currently subscribed to US01 to COMSAT or any other private accounting authority. Moreover, Inmarsat adamantly opposes designation of a default accounting authority of last resort. Given both the lack of record support for developing a formula to spread undesignated messages among several private accounting authorities, and the lack of accounting authorities coming forward on the record to offer to settle accounts for affected users, the Commission finds no basis for exploring the option further. The Commission notes, moreover, that one option it considered—to allow customers to designate an accounting authority on every message in lieu of pre-subscribing to an accounting authority—is not technically feasible, because the accounting authority is selected by the user when the device is activated for service in the first instance, not prior to each call. The Commission also states that Inmarsat is the underlying service provider for the majority of non-governmental entities who will be impacted by the FCC's withdrawal. Reassigning all users to COMSAT as accounting authority was not one of the proposals on which the Commission sought comments, and the Commission finds no record support from any users for a wholesale transfer of the settlement of their accounts to COMSAT or any other private accounting authority.

4. The Commission is not persuaded that there is a compelling need to engage in either a comparative selection or procurement process to select a new accounting authority of last resort. Given the small number of current users of the FCC's accounting authority, the availability of numerous private accounting authorities from which to choose, and the fact that no new terminals have been activated with the FCC as accounting authority in the past five years, the Commission finds there is no compelling need to designate a new accounting authority of last resort. Moreover, there is little benefit in procuring an alternative accounting authority for the few remaining terminal holders using the FCC as their accounting authority that would outweigh the administrative burden and cost of conducting further proceedings to determine how best to select an accounting authority of last resort, conducting such selection or procurement process, and then continuing to manage whichever vendor is chosen. For the same reasons the Commission has decided to withdraw as an accounting authority, it finds that it should not then “re-enter” by selecting or contracting with a private entity to take the FCC's place, when there are private accounting authorities—competitive alternatives—from which terminal holders may choose their preferred accounting authority. Instead, based on the record in the proceeding, the Commission finds that the more reasonable approach is to provide ample notice and time to allow users to select their preferred accounting authority. The Commission finds that this will ensure the continuity of lifesaving maritime communications services.

5. Commenters generally have noted that one year is the minimum amount of time that would be required for the Commission to conduct outreach and for terminal holders that currently use the Commission as their accounting authority to migrate their terminals to a new accounting authority of their choice. Given the long pendency of the proceeding and the Commission's repeated proposal, from 1998 to 2018, to withdraw as an accounting authority, the vast majority of users already have effectuated such transition. The Commission notes that, for governmental users with large accounts and multiple terminals, such transition efforts have been ongoing for some time, even in the absence of a specific transition plan or definitive timing; the Commission finds that one year is sufficient notice to such users of the need to complete the transition of their terminals to a new accounting authority, and one year is ample notice to private users of single terminals of the need to select a new accounting authority.

6. The Commission directs its staff to, within 120 days of the release of the Second Report and Order, finalize and announce a transition and outreach plan of no more than one year from the date of announcement, which the Commission finds is sufficient time for affected users to contract with an accounting authority of their choice and to perform the necessary recommissioning of their terminals. The broad outlines of the transition plan shall be as follows: The Commission will continue to act as the accounting authority for terminals currently subscribed to US01 for one year after the plan is announced. After that one-year period, the Commission will stop performing the functions of an accounting authority and will formally withdraw as an accounting authority; AAIC US01 will be deactivated. At any time before the end of the transition period, but no later than the last day of the transition period, users that have relied on the Commission as an accounting authority will need to affirmatively select an accounting authority, contract with such entity as their new accounting authority, and reactivate/recommission their terminal(s) with the AAIC of their selected accounting authority. A failure to do so could render such users unable to transmit maritime communications other than distress signals.

7. Commission staff will work with stakeholders to effectuate the transition and facilitate the selection of new accounting authorities for terminals currently subscribed to US01. Given the Coast Guard's concern regarding Inmarsat-C terminal holders, the Commission also directs staff to work with Inmarsat to notify all Inmarsat-C terminal holders of the need to select a new accounting authority. The Commission further directs staff, when formulating the transition plan, to take into account the safety concerns of the Coast Guard, and to coordinate with the Coast Guard to ensure that the message to potentially affected users is clear and disseminated in multiple ways to reach, to the extent feasible, all affected terminal users. The outreach plan shall include, at a minimum, direct notification to every terminal holder, governmental and non-governmental, that has used the FCC as an accounting authority since January 1, 2016. The Commission states that because this would capture the past three years of terminal use/activity from terminals that have the FCC as their designated accounting authority, this should be an adequate length of time to form a representative picture of which terminal holders continue to rely on the Commission as their accounting authority. Moreover, since any terminals not in use in the past three years are more likely to be those of infrequent personal users, the outreach that the Commission requires as part of the transition plan will also notify all Inmarsat-C terminal holders via messaging over the terminal itself, regardless of whether the FCC has received billing for such terminal in the past three years. The Commission's outreach plan shall also include one or more enhanced group call messages to Inmarsat-C terminal holders notifying them of the requirement to select a new accounting authority; any other feasible direct notification to all Inmarsat-C terminal holders in a manner developed collaboratively with Inmarsat and the Coast Guard; and broad outreach via public notices and other means to provide clear notice to all potentially affected users.

8. Beyond commenting on the withdrawal of the FCC as accounting authority and the associated transition, the Coast Guard asks that the FCC set forth precise procedures for mariners to file complaints with the FCC should they encounter discriminatory treatment or unreasonably high rates from an accounting authority. The Commission notes, however, that procedures already exist for the filing of complaints regarding any violation of the Commission's rules and/or for a determination of whether a practice comports with the Commission's rules, so no new procedures need be put in place. Specifically, 47 CFR 3.10(e) states, “Applicants [accounting authorities] must offer their services to any member of the public making a reasonable request therefor, without undue discrimination against any customer or class of customer,” and must charge “reasonable and non-discriminatory” fees for service. In addition, the Commission believes 47 CFR 3.52 adequately addresses procedures for resolving complaints and inquiries regarding accounting authorities. The Commission does, however, direct the staff, as part of its outreach efforts, to coordinate with the Coast Guard and provide guidance to terminal holders regarding how to file complaints and where to go for more information on Commission complaint procedures.

9. Finally, the Commission finds that the code US01 should, after deactivation, be retained by the Commission and not reassigned except upon review and approval by the Commission. This will allow for the potential assignment of the code to another governmental agency, should such need arise, and will prevent the code from being reassigned for use without the full knowledge of the Commission. Given the historic use of this code by various governmental users and potentially sensitive information associated with such governmental users, the Commission finds that this code should not be made available for reassignment to private accounting authorities. The Commission finds that protection of the US01 accounting code will reduce confusion and prevent the inadvertent provision of confidential or sensitive information without the knowledge or consent of terminal holders; therefore, it finds continued reservation of this code is in the public interest. The Commission instructs staff to take appropriate steps to ensure these protections are put in place.

10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission prepared and properly published an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the proposed policies and rules proposed. No written comments were received on the IRFA. Thus, the Commission prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules.

11. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission concludes that it will withdraw as an accounting authority in the maritime mobile and maritime mobile-satellite radio services. The Commission concludes that a 120-day period is appropriate to permit the preparation of a transition plan in coordination with the United States Coast Guard and industry, and a one-year transition period to implement that plan is sufficient to ensure a smooth, non-disruptive transition to private accounting authorities.

12. The Second Report and Order is adopted pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 11, 201-205 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 161, 201-205 and 303(r).

13. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.

14. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in the proceeding.

15. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

16. The action taken in the Second Report and Order will transition the Commission's accounting authority to one or more entities providing account-settlement services for maritime mobile and maritime mobile-satellite radio services. Small businesses may be able to become accounting clearinghouses, as the establishment of such a function does not appear to involve high implementation costs. The transition also applies to existing maritime mobile and maritime satellite customers who have not presubscribed to a private U.S. accounting authority and are, therefore, billed through the FCC as the accounting authority of last resort. An estimated thirty small entities were billed for traffic by the FCC as an accounting authority in 2016. The transition to a new accounting authority does not appear to involve high implementation costs for such entities.

17. The action taken in the Second Report and Order will not affect the existing reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of those entities already certified and those applying for certification as a private accounting authority pursuant to Part 3 of the Commission's rules.

18. The Commission is transitioning its functions and duties as an accounting authority to private accounting authorities. There is minimal impact on small entities, and affected small entities will be given ample time to effectuate the transition for any terminal for which they had prescribed the Commission as the accounting authority. No alternatives have been identified that would lessen the economic impact on small entities while remaining consistent with the objectives of the proceeding. Moreover, the Commission will conduct, in coordination with the United States Coast Guard and other stakeholders, as appropriate, extensive outreach to inform and minimize impact on all affected entities, including small entities.

19. The Second Report and Order does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.

20. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

21. It is ordered that pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 11, 201-205 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 161, 201-205 and 303(r), the Second Report and Order is adopted.

22. It is further ordered that the actions taken in the Second Report and Order will become effective April 12, 2019.

23. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

24. It is further ordered that the Second Report and Order shall be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The commercial golden tilefish sector has two components, each with its own quota: The longline and hook-and-line components (50 CFR 622.190(a)(2)). The commercial tilefish annual catch limit (ACL) is allocated 75 percent to the longline component and 25 percent to the hook-and-line component. On January 2, 2018, NMFS published a final temporary rule to implement interim measures reduce overfishing of golden tilefish in Federal waters of the South Atlantic (83 FR 65). These interim measures, which were originally effective through July 1, 2018, and were extended through January 3, 2019, (83 FR 28387; June 16, 2018), reduced the total ACL, the commercial and recreational ACLS, and the commercial quotas for the hook-and-line and longline components. On December 4, 2018, NMFS published a final rule (83 FR 62508) that implemented Regulatory Amendment 28 to the FMP, which revised the commercial and recreational ACLs for golden tilefish. The commercial ACL was revised from 323,000 lb (146,510 kg) gutted weight, to 331,740 lb (150,475 kg) gutted weight, and the longline component quota was revised from 234,982 (106,586 kg) to 248,805 lb (112,856 kg) gutted weight. Although these ACL revisions are increases over the ACLs set by the interim rule, they are still decreases relative to the ACLs that were in effect before the interim rule.

Under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii), NMFS is required to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish when the longline component's commercial quota has been reached or is projected to be reached by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. After the commercial quota for the longline component is reached or is projected to be reached, golden tilefish may not be commercially fished or possessed by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for the golden tilefish longline component in the South Atlantic will be reached on March 14, 2019. Accordingly, the commercial longline component of South Atlantic golden tilefish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, March 14, 2019.

During the commercial longline closure, golden tilefish may still be harvested commercially using hook-and-line gear. However, a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement is not eligible to fish for or possess golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the hook-and-line commercial trip limit, as specified in 50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii). The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and a valid commercial longline endorsement for golden tilefish with golden tilefish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such golden tilefish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, on March 14, 2019. During the commercial longline closure, the recreational bag limit and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(2)(iii) and (c)(1), respectively, apply to all harvest or possession of golden tilefish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ by a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement. The sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited during the commercial longline closure. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of longline-caught golden tilefish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, on March 14, 2019, and those that were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. Additionally, the recreational bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure apply to a person on board a vessel with a golden tilefish longline endorsement, regardless of whether the golden tilefish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1).

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic golden tilefish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial longline component for golden tilefish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures for this temporary rule would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(a)(1)(ii) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the golden tilefish resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota for the longline component. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota for the longline component.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Possession and Trip Limit Increase for Georges Bank Cod

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help avoid overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.

Based on most recent catch information, the common pool fishery has caught 5.3 mt of Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, or approximately 44.9 percent of its 11.9 mt annual quota. Additionally, the common pool fishery has caught 5.2 mt of witch flounder, or approximately 28.2 percent of its 18.3 mt annual quota. At the current rate of fishing, the common pool fishery is not projected to fully harvest its annual quota for either stock by the end of the 2019 fishing year. Providing vessels an opportunity to possess and land greater amounts of catch should provide greater incentive to fish and more opportunity to catch available quota. Based on our review of past fishing effort, we project that a moderate increase in the possession and trip limit for each stock should provide additional fishing opportunities and flexibility to catch available quota while ensuring that the common pool does not exceed its annual quotas.

Effective March 13, 2019, the possession and trip limits of GOM cod and witch flounder are increased, as summarized in Table 1.

Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our website at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because this action relieves possession and landing restrictions, and delayed implementation would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help avoid overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.

The catch data used as the basis for this action only recently became available. The available analysis indicates that the increased possession and trip limit adjustments for GOM cod and witch flounder should help the fishery achieve the optimum yield (OY) for this stock. Any delay in this action would limit the benefits to common pool vessels that the increased landing and possession limits are intended to provide.

The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would keep NMFS from implementing the necessary possession and trip limit before the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2019, which could prevent the fishery from achieving the OY and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. This would undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and cause unnecessary negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. The public received prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the Regional Administrator's exercise of this authority. The fishing industry participants have experienced these adjustments and have become accustomed to this process. There is additional good cause to waive the delayed effective period because this action relieves restrictions on fishing vessels by increasing a trip limit.

Regulations governing the Atlantic mackerel fishery can be found at 50 CFR part 648, including requirements for setting annual catch cap allocations for river herring and shad. NMFS set the 2018 river herring and shad catch cap for the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery at 82 mt as part of a final rule to implement the 2016 through 2018 Atlantic mackerel specifications (81 FR 24504, April 4, 2016). The 2019 river herring and shad catch cap will be adjusted in the final rule of Framework adjustment 13 to the Atlantic mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, which is currently under development. NMFS will evaluate the mackerel fishery and landings relative to the new proposed cap, if approved.

The NMFS Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator) monitors river herring and shad catch from the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information. The regulations at § 648.24 require that when the Regional Administrator projects that when 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap has been caught by the directed Atlantic mackerel fishery ( i.e., trips that land more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel) will reach 95 percent of a catch cap, NMFS must prohibit, through notification in the Federal Register , Federal limited access permitted Atlantic mackerel vessels from fishing for, possessing, transferring, receiving, landing, or selling more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip or landing more than once per calendar day for the remainder of the calendar year.

The Regional Administrator has determined, based on vessel and dealer reports, state data, and other available information, that Federal limited access Atlantic mackerel vessels will have caught 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap by March 12, 2019. The regulations at § 648.24(d) require NMFS to provide at least a 72 hour notice to the public before any Atlantic mackerel possession reduction or fishery closure. Therefore, effective 00:01 hr local time, March 12, 2019, federally permitted vessels targeting Atlantic mackerel may not fish for, catch, possess, transfer, land, or sell more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel per trip or calendar day through December 31, 2019. Vessels with more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel that have entered port before 00:01 hr local time, March 12, 2019, may land and sell more than 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) of Atlantic mackerel from that trip.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. This action restricts the catch of Atlantic mackerel for the remainder of the fishing year. Data have only recently become available indicating that directed Atlantic mackerel trips by federally permitted vessels will have caught 95 percent of the river herring and shad catch cap established for the 2019 calendar year. Once NMFS projects that river herring and shad catch will reach 95 percent of the catch cap, NMFS is required by Federal regulation to implement a 20,000 lb (9.08 mt) Atlantic mackerel possession limit and prohibit vessels from landing Atlantic mackerel more than once per calendar day through December 31, 2019. The regulations at § 648.24(b)(6) require such action to ensure that such vessels do not exceed the river herring and shad catch cap for the Atlantic mackerel fishery. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the river herring and shad catch cap for this fishing year will likely be exceeded; thereby, undermining the conservation objectives of the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.

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.

The B season allowance of the 2019 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 848 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018) and inseason adjustment (84 FR 33, January 4, 2019).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the B season allowance of the 2019 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 748 mt and is setting aside the remaining 100 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 pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.

While this closure is effective, 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 closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 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 7, 2019.

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.

Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 679 implement the FMP and govern the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. The Council prepared the FMP, and NMFS approved it, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS, after consultation with the Council, to specify annually the total allowable catch (TAC) for each target species category. The sum of all TAC for all groundfish species in the BSAI must be within the optimum yield (OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million metric tons (mt) (see § 679.20(a)(1)(i)(A)). This final rule specifies the total TAC at 2.0 million mt for both 2019 and 2020. NMFS also must specify apportionments of TAC, prohibited species catch (PSC) allowances, and prohibited species quota (PSQ) reserves established by § 679.21; seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka mackerel TAC; American Fisheries Act allocations; Amendment 80 allocations; Community Development Quota (CDQ) reserve amounts established by § 679.20(b)(1)(ii); and acceptable biological catch (ABC) surpluses and reserves for CDQ groups and the Amendment 80 cooperative for flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole. The final harvest specifications set forth in Tables 1 through 25 of this action satisfy these requirements.

Section 679.20(c)(3)(i) further requires that NMFS consider public comment on the proposed harvest specifications and, after consultation with the Council, publish final harvest specifications in the Federal Register . The proposed 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for the groundfish fishery of the BSAI were published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62815). Comments were invited and accepted through January 7, 2019. NMFS received no comments on the proposed harvest specifications. NMFS consulted with the Council on the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications during the December 2018 Council meeting in Anchorage, AK. After considering public comments, as well as biological and socioeconomic data that were available at the Council's December meeting, in this final rule NMFS implements the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications as recommended by the Council.

The final ABC amounts for Alaska groundfish are based on the best available biological and socioeconomic information, including projected biomass trends, information on assumed distribution of stock biomass, and revised technical methods used to calculate stock biomass. In general, the development of ABCs and overfishing levels (OFLs) involves sophisticated statistical analyses of fish populations. The FMP specifies a series of six tiers to define OFL and ABC amounts based on the level of reliable information available to fishery scientists. Tier 1 represents the highest level of information quality available, while Tier 6 represents the lowest.

In December 2018, the Council, its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and its Advisory Panel (AP) reviewed current biological and harvest information about the condition of the BSAI groundfish stocks. The Council's BSAI Groundfish Plan Team (Plan Team) compiled and presented this information in the 2018 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries, dated November 2018 (see ADDRESSES ). The SAFE report contains a review of the latest scientific analyses and estimates of each species' biomass and other biological parameters, as well as summaries of the available information on the BSAI ecosystem and the economic condition of groundfish fisheries off Alaska. NMFS notified the public of the comment period for these harvest specifications—and of the publication of the 2018 SAFE report—in the notice of proposed harvest specifications. From the data and analyses in the SAFE report, the Plan Team recommended an OFL and ABC for each species or species group at the November 2018 Plan Team meeting.

In December 2018, the SSC, AP, and Council reviewed the Plan Team's recommendations. The final TAC recommendations were based on the ABCs as adjusted for other biological and socioeconomic considerations, including maintaining the sum of all the TACs within the required OY range of 1.4 million to 2.0 million mt. As required by annual catch limit rules for all fisheries (74 FR 3178, January 16, 2009), none of the Council's recommended 2019 or 2020 TACs exceed the final 2019 or 2020 ABCs for any species or species group. NMFS finds that the Council's recommended OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are consistent with the preferred harvest strategy and the biological condition of groundfish stocks as described in the 2018 SAFE report that was approved by the Council. Therefore, this final rule provides notice that the Secretary of Commerce approves the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications as recommended by the Council.

The 2019 harvest specifications set in this final action will supersede the 2019 harvest specifications previously set in the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). The 2020 harvest specifications herein will be superseded in early 2020 when the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications are published. Pursuant to this final action, the 2019 harvest specifications therefore will apply for the remainder of the current year (2019), while the 2020 harvest specifications are projected only for the following year (2020) and will be superseded in early 2020 by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications. Because this final action (published in early 2019) will be superseded in early 2020 by the publication of the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications, it is projected that this final action will implement the harvest specifications for the BSAI for approximately one year.

As described in the proposed harvest specifications, NMFS published the final rule to implement Amendment 117 to the FMP (83 FR 31460, July 6, 2018). This rule reclassified squid in the FMP as an “Ecosystem Component” species, which is a category of non-target species that are not in need of conservation and management. NMFS will no longer set an OFL, ABC, and TAC for squid. Therefore, the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for the BSAI do not include an OFL, ABC, and TAC for squid. Amendment 117 prohibits directed fishing for squid, while maintaining recordkeeping and reporting requirements for squid. Amendment 117 also establishes a squid maximum retainable amount when directed fishing for groundfish species at 20 percent to discourage targeting squid species.

On February 8, 2019, NMFS published a final rule (84 FR 2723, February 8, 2019) that modifies regulations for the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Program participants subject to limits on the catch of specific species (sideboard limits) in the BSAI. Sideboard limits are intended to prevent AFA Program participants who benefit from receiving exclusive harvesting privileges in a particular fishery from shifting effort to other fisheries.

Specifically, the final rule primarily establishes regulations to prohibit directed fishing for sideboard limits for specific groundfish species or species groups, rather than prohibiting directed fishing for AFA sideboard limits through the BSAI annual harvest specifications. Currently, NMFS calculates numerous AFA Program sideboard limits as part of the annual BSAI groundfish harvest specifications process and publishes these sideboard limits in the Federal Register . Concurrently, NMFS prohibits directed fishing for the majority of the groundfish sideboard limits because most limits are too small to support directed fishing. Rather than continue this annual process, the final rule revises regulations to prohibit directed fishing in regulation for most AFA Program groundfish sideboard limits. Once the final rule is effective (effective March 11, 2019), NMFS will no longer publish in the annual BSAI harvest specifications the AFA Program sideboard limit amounts for groundfish species subject to the final rule (contained in Tables 20 and 22 of this action), and those groundfish species subject to the final rule will be prohibited to directed fishing in regulation (84 FR 2723).

For 2019 and 2020, the Board of Fisheries (BOF) for the State of Alaska (State) established the guideline harvest level (GHL) for vessels using pot gear in State waters in the Bering Sea subarea (BS) equal to 8 percent of the Pacific cod ABC in the BS. Also, for 2019 and 2020, the BOF established an additional GHL for vessels using jig gear in State waters in the BS equal to 45 mt of Pacific cod in the BS. The Council and its Plan Team, SSC, and AP recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals from the BS not exceed the ABC recommendations for Pacific cod in the BS. Accordingly, the Council recommended and NMFS approves that the 2019 and 2020 Pacific cod TACs in the BS account for the State's GHLs for Pacific cod caught in State waters in the BS. Also, the BOF approved a one percent annual increase in the BS GHL for vessels using pot gear, up to 15 percent of the BS ABC, if 90 percent of the GHL is harvested by November 15 of the preceding year. If 90 percent of the 2019 BS GHL is not harvested by November 15, 2019, the 2020 GHL will remain at 8 percent. If, however, 90 percent of the 2019 BS GHL is harvested by November 15, 2019, the 2020 GHL will increase by 1 percent to 9 percent of the 2020 BS ABC, and the 2020 BS TAC will be set to account for the increased BS GHL.

For 2019 and 2020, the BOF established a GHL in State waters in the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI) equal to 31 percent of the Pacific cod ABC in the AI. The Council and its Plan Team, SSC, and AP recommended that the sum of all State and Federal water Pacific cod removals from the AI not exceed the ABC recommendations for Pacific cod in the AI. Accordingly, the Council recommended and NMFS approves that the 2019 and 2020 Pacific cod TACs in the AI account for the State's GHL for Pacific cod caught in State waters in the AI.

The Council's recommendations for the proposed 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications (83 FR 62815, December 6, 2018) were based largely on information contained in the 2017 SAFE report for the BSAI groundfish fisheries. Through the proposed harvest specifications, NMFS notified the public that these harvest specifications could change, as the Council would consider information contained in the 2018 SAFE report; recommendations from the Plan Team, SSC, and AP committees; and public comments when making its recommendations for final harvest specifications at the December 2018 Council meeting. NMFS further notified the public that, as required by the FMP and its implementing regulations, the sum of the TACs must be within the OY range of 1.4 million and 2.0 million mt.

Information contained in the 2018 SAFE report indicates biomass changes from the 2017 SAFE report for several groundfish species. The 2018 report was made available for public review during the public comment period for the proposed harvest specifications. At the December 2018 Council meeting, the SSC recommended the 2019 and 2020 ABCs based on the best and most recent information contained in the 2018 SAFE report. This recommendation resulted in an ABC sum total for all BSAI groundfish species in excess of 2.0 million mt for both 2019 and 2020.

Based on increased fishing effort in 2018, the Council recommends final BS pollock TACs increase by 12,800 mt in 2019 and 35,800 mt in 2020 compared to the proposed 2019 and 2020 BS pollock TACs. In terms of percentage, the largest increases in final 2019 and 2020 TACs relative to the proposed 2019 and 2020 TACs include BSAI shortraker rockfish and octopuses. The increases account for anticipated higher incidental catches of these species, based on increased incidental catches in 2018. Other increases in the final 2019 TACs relative to the proposed 2019 TACs include Bering Sea Pacific cod, Alaska plaice, “other flatfish,” Pacific ocean perch, Central Aleutian and Western Aleutian (CAI/WAI) blackspotted/rougheye rockfish, and Western Aleutian Islands (WAI) Atka mackerel. The 2019 increases account for higher interest in directed fishing or higher anticipated incidental catch needs.

Decreases in final 2019 TACs compared to the proposed 2019 TACs include Bogoslof pollock, Aleutian Islands (AI) Pacific cod, BS sablefish, AI sablefish, yellowfin sole, arrowtooth flounder, rock sole, flathead sole, AI “other rockfish,” Eastern Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea (EAI/BS) Atka mackerel, Central Aleutian Islands (CAI) Atka mackerel, skates, and sharks. The decreases for AI Pacific cod, EAI/BS and CAI Atka mackerel, BS sablefish, AI sablefish, and “other rockfish” are to account for ABC constraints. The remaining decreases are for anticipated lower incidental catch needs of these species relative to 2018.

The changes to TACs between the proposed and final harvest specifications are based on the most recent scientific and economic information and are consistent with the FMP, regulatory obligations, and harvest strategy as described in the proposed harvest specifications, including the upper limit for OY of 2.0 million mt. These changes are compared in Table 1A.

Table 1 lists the Council's recommended final 2019 OFL, ABC, TAC, initial TAC (ITAC), and CDQ reserve allocations of the BSAI groundfish species or species groups; and Table 2 lists the Council's recommended final 2020 OFL, ABC, TAC, ITAC, and CDQ reserve allocations of the BSAI groundfish species or species groups. NMFS concurs in these recommendations. These final 2019 and 2020 TAC recommendations for the BSAI are within the OY range established for the BSAI and do not exceed the ABC for any species or species group. The apportionment of TAC amounts among fisheries and seasons is discussed below.