On, July 31, 2018 (83 FR 36797), FSIS proposed to eliminate the prescriptive regulatory requirements at 9 CFR 318.12 and 381.152 that govern the manufacture of uninspected, inedible products, such as pet food, and restrict the hours during which such products may be prepared in an official establishment. These prescriptive regulations were issued before FSIS published its regulations requiring HACCP, Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (sanitation SOPs), and compliance with the Sanitation Performance Standards. Under HACCP and sanitation requirements, an establishment that produces both edible and inedible meat and poultry products must develop and implement the controls and procedures necessary to prevent the adulteration of edible products by insanitary conditions and product commingling, as well as to prevent the movement of inedible products into commerce as human food.

FSIS is finalizing the proposed rule with one non-substantive technical correction. Specifically, FSIS is adding a reference to the revised regulations in 9 CFR 381.193, which govern the labeling of uninspected, inedible poultry products. This citation was inadvertently left out of the proposal to revise the regulations at 9 CFR 381.152, but an analogous citation was proposed for meat regulations at 9 CFR 318.12(b).

FSIS received eight comments on the proposed rule submitted by a trade association representing the pet food industry, a trade organization representing the meat and poultry industry, five individuals, and a commenter purporting to be an airline. The meat and poultry trade organization and one individual supported the proposal. A summary of issues raised by other commenters follows:

Comment: The trade association representing the pet food industry urged FSIS to work with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that all establishments under FSIS regulatory oversight are aware that FDA regulations implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) require certain firms that produce animal food to perform a hazard analysis and establish and implement risk-based preventive controls ( see 80 FR 56169).

Response: FSIS will continue to work with FDA regarding official FSIS establishments that may need to comply with FDA's good manufacturing practice and/or preventive controls for animal food regulations.

Comment: Two individuals opposed the rule, expressing concerns that it would result in there being no regulatory oversight of pet food production.

Response: Pet food products will continue to be regulated at both the Federal and State levels. At the Federal level, FDA regulates animal feed and companion animal food. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires that all animal foods, like human foods, be safe to eat, produced under sanitary conditions, contain no harmful substances, and be truthfully labeled. Most states also have laws that require registration or licensing to sell animal food.

Comment: An individual asked for clarification on how the proposed change affects or applies to retail exempt facilities.

Response: This final rule removes requirements in 9 CFR 318.12 and 381.152, which only apply to official establishments producing meat and poultry products under Federal inspection. This final rule does not address the preparation or processing of animal food at retail firms, including those that operate under FSIS's retail exemption.

Comment: One comment from a former inspector expressed concerns that the proposal would lessen the ability of FSIS inspectors to ensure that inedible products are not put into commerce as human food.

Response: This rule does not affect the authority or ability of FSIS inspectors to verify that official establishments manufacturing inedible product are keeping it separate from meat and poultry products and not otherwise creating insanitary conditions through its manufacture. Nor does this rule affect the authority or ability of FSIS inspectors to take enforcement actions to prevent inedible product from entering commerce as human food.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

As stated above, compliance with HACCP and sanitation regulations facilitates the production of safe, unadulterated product by establishments and makes the prescriptive requirements in 9 CFR 318.12 and 381.152 unnecessary. Because these prescriptive requirements are no longer necessary to ensure the production of safe, unadulterated food, removing them will have no negative public health impact. In addition, this rule will not impose costs on the industry or the Agency.

Further, removing the unnecessary, prescriptive requirements should allow establishments additional flexibility to be innovative and to operate in the most efficient, cost effective manner. Similarly, the rule should also allow FSIS to use its resources more appropriately. However, FSIS cannot quantify these savings.

The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States. The final rule will not increase costs to the industry.

Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), FSIS has estimated that this final rule will yield cost savings. Therefore, this final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq. ) by, among other things, promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication online through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS will also announce and provide a link to it through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

Fax: (202) 690-7442.

Email: program.intake@usda.gov .

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Primrose Heliport, Minersville, PA, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures serving this heliport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (84 FR 26377, June 6, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0358 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Primrose Heliport, Minersville, PA.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius at Primrose Heliport, Minersville, PA, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the heliport.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)) identifies entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License review policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register notice adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add seventeen entities, under a total of nineteen entries, to the Entity List; one of these entities is being added under three entries. The seventeen entities being added are located in Armenia, Belgium, Canada, China, Georgia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Russia, the U.A.E. and the U.K. The seventeen entities are being added based on § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The nineteen entries consist of two entries located in Armenia, two entries located in Belgium, one entry located in Canada, four entries located in China, one entry located in Georgia, one entry located in Hong Kong, one entry located in Malaysia, one entry located in the Netherlands, one entry located in Russia, four entries located in the U.A.E., and one entry located in the U.K.

The ERC reviewed and applied § 744.11(b) in making the determination to add these seventeen entities to the Entity List. Under that section, entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, along with those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. For each of the seventeen entities described below, the ERC made the requisite determination under the standard set forth in § 744.11(b).

Pursuant to § 744.11(b), the ERC determined to add Al Merikh General Trading, an Emirati entity, to the Entity List, because Al Merikh General Trading has transshipped U.S.-origin items to sanctioned destinations without the required authorizations; to add four Chinese entities, China General Nuclear Power Group, China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC), China Nuclear Power Technology Research Institute Co. Ltd., and Suzhou Nuclear Power Research Institute Co. Ltd., because each of these four Chinese entities has engaged in or enabled efforts to acquire advanced U.S. nuclear technology and material for diversion to military uses in China; and to add Corad Technology Limited, a Hong Kong entity, because Corad Technology Limited has been involved in the sale of U.S. technology to Iran's military and space programs, to front companies of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), and to subordinate entities of China's Government and its defense industry. The ERC also determined to add two Belgian entities, Industrial Metals and Commodities and Nicolas Kaiga; three Emirati entities, Emirates Alloys, Super Alloys, and Saeed Valadbaigi; one Malaysian entity, NBH Industries; and one Georgian entity, Georgia Petrochemical and Aviatech, to the Entity List, because each of these seven entities unlawfully attempted to procure and divert export-controlled aluminum tubing via Malaysia to Iran. Nicolas Kaiga also has been added under entries for the Netherlands and the U.K., in addition to Belgium.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b), the ERC also determined to add Kelvo Inc., a Canadian entity, to the Entity List, because the sole proprietor of Kelvo Inc. engaged in unlawful reexports from Canada to Russia and Armenia of items subject to the EAR and controlled on the Commerce Control List (CCL) for national security reasons; to add two Armenian entities, Markel Closed Joint Stock Company (Markel CJSC) and Yerevan Telecommunications Research Institute (YETRI) Closed Joint Stock Company (CJSC), because YETRI CJSC has obtained CCL items that were reexported without the required BIS licenses, and the person who is both Executive Director of YETRI CJSC and President of Markel CJSC has been engaged in a business relationship with a sanctioned Iranian organization; and to add one Russian entity Joint Stock Company Kaluga Scientific Research Institute of Radio Engineering (KNIRTI), because KNIRTI is a majority-owned subsidiary of the sanctioned Russian entity Joint-Stock Company Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies ( a.k.a., KRET), and is subject to existing designations by the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to Executive Order 13661.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b), the ERC determined that the conduct of these seventeen entities raises sufficient concerns that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these entities, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.

For the seventeen entities added to the Entity List in this final rule, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirement applies to any transaction in which items subject to the EAR are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of these entities. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters, and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following seventeen entities, under a total of nineteen entries, to the Entity List:

• Markel Closed Joint Stock Company (Markel CJSC); and

• Yerevan Telecommunications Research Institute (YETRI) Closed Joint Stock Company (CJSC).

• Industrial Metals and Commodities; and

• Nicolas Kaiga, including one alias (Nicholas Kaiga).

• Kelvo Inc.

• China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC), including one alias (China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation);

• China General Nuclear Power Group;

• China Nuclear Power Technology Research Institute Co. Ltd.; and

• Suzhou Nuclear Power Research Institute Co. Ltd.

• Georgia Petrochemical and Aviatech.

• Corad Technology Limited, including one alias (Corad Technology (China) Limited).

• NBH Industries.

• Nicolas Kaiga, including one alias (Nicholas Kaiga).

• Joint Stock Company Kaluga Scientific Research Institute of Radio Engineering (KNIRTI).

• Al Merikh General Trading;

• Emirates Alloys, including two aliases (Emirates Alloys General Trading LLC; and Emirates Aero);

• Super Alloys; and

• Saeed Valadbaigi, including two aliases (Saeed Valad; and Saeed Baigi).

• Nicolas Kaiga, including one alias (Nicholas Kaiga).

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify twenty-three existing entries. The modifications consist of revising seventeen entries under China, four entries under Hong Kong, and two entries under Russia. The modifications to the entities under China consist of revising five entries, and, to reflect changes to ten separate entities, removing the entries for these ten entities and adding in their place twelve new entries. The final rule adds twelve entries under the destination of China as part of the modifications of these ten entries because one entry that is being modified is being removed and in its place three separate entities are being added to reflect a reorganization that occurred at that entity whereby the single entity has now become three distinct entities.

The modifications to twenty-three existing entries is described further as follows:

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, First Department, Chinese Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24266) and most recently modified on September 9, 2012 (77 FR 58006). BIS is modifying the existing entry by updating names (including entity name and aliases) and addresses for this entry. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 1st Academy First Design Department.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Beijing Aerospace Automatic Control Institute (BICD), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28909) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) for this entry. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 1st Academy 12 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, 13 Institute, China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24265) and most recently modified on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 78877). BIS is modifying the existing entry by updating names (including entity name and aliases) and addresses and correcting the organizational structure for this entity, which is now a part of the CASC 9th Academy. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 9th Academy 13 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Beijing Institute of Structure and Environmental Engineering (BISE), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28909) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) for this entity. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 1st Academy 702 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Beijing Power Machinery Institute, which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24266) and most recently modified on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 78877). BIS is modifying the existing entry by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) and addresses for this entity. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) 3rd Academy, 31 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Xiangdong Machinery Factory, within the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corps Third Academy (CASIC), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24267) and most recently modified on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58006). BIS is modifying the existing entry by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) and addresses. These modifications also update the entry to reflect the organizational structure for Xiangdong Machinery Factory, within the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp's Third Academy (CASIC). This rule changes the existing entry to reflect that Xiangdong Machinery Factory is three separate entities, to be listed as follows:

• China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) 3rd Academy;

• China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) 3rd Academy's 159 Factory; and

• China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) 3rd Academy's 239 Factory.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, 33 Institute, which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24266) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry for 33 Institute by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) and addresses for this entity. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) 3rd Academy, 33 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, 35 Institute, which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24266) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry for 35 Institute by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) and addresses for this entity. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) 3rd Academy, 35 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST), which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28909) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry for Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology by updating the names (including the entity name and aliases) and addresses for this entry. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 8th Academy.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Shanghai Institute of Space Power Sources, which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28909) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry for Shanghai Institute of Space Power Sources by updating names (including the entity name and aliases) and addresses for this entity. This rule changes the existing entity name to China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 8th Academy 811 Research Institute.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify four existing entries, Chen Qu, Edward Fan, Sharon Yang, and TanWei, which were added to the Entity List under the destination of China on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 14958). These four persons had the same address as Jereh International and Yantai Jereh Oilfield Services, which are removed from the Entity List in this rule. BIS is modifying the existing entries Chen Qu, Edward Fan, Sharon Yang, and TanWei by revising the addresses to provide new addresses associated with each of these four persons that are being retained on the Entity List.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Northwestern Polytechnical University, which was first added to the Entity List under the destination of China on May 14, 2001 (66 FR 24266) and most recently modified on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64696). BIS is modifying the existing entry for Northwestern Polytechnical University by adding a reference to see § 744.11 of the EAR in the License Requirement. BIS is also modifying the existing entry by changing the License Review Policy to a presumption of denial.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify four existing entries, Calvin Law, CLC Holdings Limited, LHI Technology (H.K.) Company Limited, and ZM International Company Ltd., which were added to the Entity List under the destination of Hong Kong on September 4, 2018 (83 FR 44824). BIS is modifying these existing entries by revising the addresses to add “N.T.” before Hong Kong.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Obinsk Research and Production Enterprise (ORPE), which was added to the Entity List under the destination of Russia on September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48534). BIS is modifying the existing entry to correct a spelling error by inserting an “n” after “b,” so it reads as “Obninsk” in the three places where the term is referenced in this entry.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, Limited Liability Company Concord Management and Consulting, which was added to the Entity List under the destination of Russia on June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28408). BIS is modifying the existing entry of Limited Liability Company Concord Management and Consulting to insert text for the License Requirement, License Review Policy, and Federal Register citation columns that was inadvertently not included in the final rule that originally added this entity.

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove Jereh International and Yantai Jereh Oilfield Services Group Co., Ltd., two entities located in China, from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request. The entries for Jereh International and Yantai Jereh Oilfield Services Group Co., Ltd. were added to the Entity List on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 14958). This rule also implements a decision of the ERC to remove Deira General Marketing, an entity located in the U.A.E., from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request. The entry for Deira General Marketing was added to the Entity List on January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3580). The ERC decided to remove these three entries based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in Supplement No. 5 to part 744.

This final rule implements the decision to remove the following three entities, consisting of two located in China and one in the U.A.E., from the Entity List:

• Jereh International; and

• Yantai Jereh Oilfield Services Group Co., Ltd.

• Deira General Marketing.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or for export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on August 14, 2019, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA). ECRA, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852), provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set forth in Sec. 1768 of ECRA, all delegations, rules, regulations, orders, determinations, licenses, or other forms of administrative action that have been made, issued, conducted, or allowed to become effective under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq. ) (as in effect prior to August 13, 2018 and as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) and Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 8, 2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018)), or the Export Administration Regulations, and were in effect as of August 13, 2018, shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, superseded, set aside, or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to Section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852), which was included in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. This action involves the removal of three entities from the Entity List. Removals from the Entity List involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including, where applicable, sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is reviewed according to the procedures and criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set forth in 15 CFR 744.11, 15 CFR 744.16, and 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5. For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relies to make the decisions to remove these entities. In addition, the information included in a removal request is exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (§ 1761(h) of the ECRA), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List may contain confidential business information that is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the ERC.

6. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

The Commission is adopting amendments to:

On September 26, 2018, the Commission published for comment proposed amendments to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) to provide an exemption from the rule for NRSROs with respect to credit ratings if the issuer of the security or money market instrument referred to in the rule is not a U.S. person, and the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that all offers and sales of such security or money market instrument by any issuer, sponsor, or underwriter linked to such security or money market instrument will occur outside the United States. 2 The Commission also proposed amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2 that would conform the exemptions contained in such rules with the exemption proposed with respect to Rule 17g-5(a)(3).

As discussed in Section III of this release, the Commission has considered the comment letters received in response to the proposed amendments and is adopting the amendments as proposed. 3 The Commission believes that codifying the exemption to Rule 17g-5(a)(3) is appropriate given notions of international comity and the generally limited interest of the Commission in regulating securities offered and sold exclusively outside of the United States. With respect to the conforming amendments to Rule 17g-7(a) and Rule 15Ga-2, the Commission continues to believe that it is important to maintain a consistent approach to determining how Rule 17g-5(a)(3), Rule 17g-7(a), and Rule 15Ga-2 apply to offshore transactions. The Commission further believes that the changes made to the conditions to the exemptions will promote clarity and consistency regarding the intended application of the exemptions and their relationship to 17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905 (“Regulation S”).

In 2009, the Commission adopted amendments to 17 CFR 240.17g-5 (“Rule 17g-5”) designed to address conflicts of interest arising from the business of determining credit ratings, and to improve competition and the quality of credit ratings for structured finance products, by making it possible for more NRSROs to rate such securities. 4 The amendments established a program (“Rule 17g-5 Program”) by which an NRSRO that is not hired by an issuer, sponsor, or underwriter (collectively, “arranger”) is able to obtain the same information that the arranger provides to an NRSRO hired to determine a credit rating for the structured finance product at the same time the information is provided to the hired NRSRO. 5

The Rule 17g-5 Program operates by requiring a hired NRSRO to maintain a password-protected website containing a list of each structured finance product for which it is currently in the process of determining an initial credit rating. 6 The list must be in chronological order and identify the type of structured finance product, the name of the issuer, the date the credit rating process was initiated, and the website where the arranger of the structured finance product represents that the information provided to the hired NRSRO can be accessed by non-hired NRSROs. 7 The hired NRSRO must provide free and unlimited access to the website it maintains pursuant to the Rule 17g-5 Program to any non-hired NRSRO that provides a copy of a certification it has furnished to the Commission in accordance with 17 CFR 240.17g-5(e). 8

The Rule 17g-5 Program also requires the hired NRSRO to obtain a written representation from the arranger of the structured finance product that can be reasonably relied on by the hired NRSRO. 9 Such representation must include: That the arranger will maintain a password-protected website that other NRSROs can access; that the arranger will post on this website all information the arranger provides to the hired NRSRO (or contracts with a third party to provide to the hired NRSRO) for the purpose of determining the initial credit rating and undertaking credit rating surveillance; and that the arranger will post this information to the website at the same time such information is provided to the hired NRSRO. 10

Prior to the June 2, 2010, compliance date for the Rule 17g-5 Program, the Commission by order granted a temporary conditional exemption to NRSROs from Rule 17g-5(a)(3). This temporary conditional exemption (the “existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption”) applies solely with respect to credit ratings if: (1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined under 17 CFR 230.902(k)); and (2) the NRSRO has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the United States. 11 These conditions were designed to confine the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption's application to credit ratings of structured finance products issued in, and linked to, financial markets outside of the United States. The Commission granted this relief in light of concerns raised by various foreign securities regulators and market participants that local securitization markets may be disrupted if the rule applied to transactions outside the United States. 12 The Commission has extended the existing Rule 17g-5(a)(3) exemption several times, most recently until the earlier of December 2, 2019, or the compliance date set forth in any final rule that may be adopted by the Commission that provides for a similar exemption. 13

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

On February 28, 2019, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve the Hawaii Department of Health's (DOH) August 6, 2015 submittal addressing two requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 1 A detailed discussion of Hawaii's good neighbor SIP and the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP revision is provided in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on April 1, 2019. During the comment period, we received one comment. We summarize the comment below and provide our response.

Comment 1: The commenter states that the EPA's preamble for its proposed action summarizes trajectory analyses submitted by Hawaii and that the EPA concludes that “[a] very small fraction of emissions arrives in the continental United States (U.S.) more than two days after release and a slightly larger fraction arrives five days after release.” The commenter states that it is unclear whether this factual assertion was made by the state or whether it is the EPA's own conclusion. The commenter goes on to assert that it is not possible to conclude from wind trajectories what fraction of emissions from Hawaii reach the continental U.S. The commenter concludes by stating that the EPA cannot base its approval of the good neighbor SIP on this factual assertion, as it is not supported by the cited evidence.

Response 1: This statement is the EPA's own conclusion. We agree with the commenter that it is not possible to precisely quantify the fraction of emissions from Hawaii that reaches the continental U.S. based on the trajectory analysis submitted by Hawaii. This analysis establishes the time to transport emissions to the continental U.S., but does not address the deposition, chemical transformation, and dispersion that would occur during transport. Quantifying these factors would require modeling, which, as explained in our proposal, we do not believe is necessary for an isolated state such as Hawaii. However, based on the time and distance of transport, as well as the fact that a certain degree of deposition, chemical transformation, and dispersion would necessarily occur over such time and distance, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the fraction of emissions from Hawaii that would reach the continental U.S. would be relatively small. The commenter has provided no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

Furthermore, this conclusion was only one factor in the overall weight of evidence analysis that we used to assess Hawaii's interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Another key factor was that Hawaii's total emissions of ozone precursors are significantly lower than emissions of these pollutants from several continental states, including Colorado. 2 Based on modeling, the EPA has found that Colorado's emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind states. 3 Given that emissions from Colorado are over five times greater than those from Hawaii, and Colorado is more than 2,000 miles closer to nonattainment receptors than Hawaii, it is unlikely that Hawaii's emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment.

Comment 2: The commenter notes that the preamble to the EPA's proposed rule states that Hawaii's emissions are declining. The commenter asserts that the approval of a good neighbor SIP with respect to Prong 1 must be based on the effects that emissions from the upwind state are having on other states at this time, not on the effect of lower emissions projected to prevail in the future. The commenter states that the EPA's reference to future levels of emissions should not be part of the EPA's rationale for approving the SIP with respect to the Prong 1 requirement. The commenter acknowledges that the fact that future emissions are expected to be less than current emissions can be considered in evaluating whether the SIP satisfies Prong 2. The commenter requests that the EPA more logically state its rationale for approval of the SIP.

Response 2: The commenter is incorrect that an approval of a good neighbor SIP with respect to Prong 1 must be based solely on the effects emissions from the upwind state are having on other states at this time. Prong 1 requires SIPs to include adequate provisions prohibiting emission “which will contribute significantly to nonattainment” in another state. 4 The EPA has interpreted this phrase to refer to “sources that presently and at some point in the future `will' contribute to nonattainment” and the D.C. Circuit Court has upheld this interpretation as reasonable in North Carolina v. EPA (“ North Carolina ”). 5

Consistent with this interpretation, the EPA has routinely approved interstate transport SIPs that rely on future year modeling. 6 In particular, as noted in the preamble to the proposed action, the EPA's historical approach to addressing interstate transport under the good neighbor provision has been to evaluate states' obligations to address downwind contributions using a multistep process. This process involves identifying downwind air quality problems; identifying upwind states that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered “linked” and therefore warrant further review and analysis; identifying the emissions reductions necessary (if any), considering cost and air quality factors to prevent the linked upwind states from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality problems; and adopting permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions.

When the EPA identified downwind air quality problems as part of the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update, we used air quality modeling projections for the (then) future analytic year of 2017, 7 consistent with the North Carolina decision. 8 The EPA also used a 2017 compliance deadline to ensure that the emissions reductions achieved through implementing the CSAPR Update would be made prior to the July 20, 2018 moderate attainment deadline, 9 again in conformance with North Carolina. 10

Because Hawaii was not part of the EPA's air quality modeling analysis for the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a weight of evidence analysis to assess Hawaii's interstate transport obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This approach included reviewing Hawaii's recent emissions history that showed emissions have decreased over time and are substantially lower than emissions from California, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, as shown in Table 1 of our proposed rule, 11 and reviewing Hawaii's transport patterns using trajectory analysis. We then compared the emissions data and the distance between Hawaii and receptors in the continental U.S. with the much higher emissions levels and much smaller distances between upwind and downwind states with known, modeled linkages in the continental U.S. In other words, our analysis considered both the absolute level of recent emissions from Hawaii and the downward trend in these emissions. Based on this analysis, the EPA concludes that emissions from Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Our approval of Hawaii's interstate transport SIP is based on this determination.

For the reasons described in our responses to comments, the comments received do not alter our proposed determination that emissions from Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, the EPA is approving Hawaii's 2008 ozone transport SIP, submitted by Hawaii DOH on August 6, 2015, as meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as a revision to the Hawaii SIP.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Act; and

• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register .

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 15, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0641 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 15, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0641, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9555) (FRL-9956-86), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance exemption petition (PP 6F8508) by Bee Vectoring Technology, Inc., 4160 Sladeview Crescent #7, Mississauga, Ontario L5L 0A1, Canada (c/o Technology Sciences Group, Inc., 1150 18th St. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036). The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the fungicide Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7 in or on all food commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Bee Vectoring Technology, Inc. and available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit III.C.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7 and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Safety Determination for Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7” (Safety Determination). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES .

The available data demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7 is not toxic via the pulmonary, oral, or dermal routes of exposure and is not pathogenic or infective via the pulmonary route of exposure. Although there may be some exposure to residues when Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7 is used on food commodities in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices, dietary exposure to such residues presents no concern for adverse effects. EPA also determined that a Food Quality Protection Act safety factor (FQPA SF) was not necessary as part of the qualitative assessment conducted for Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7. These findings are discussed in more detail in the Safety Determination.

Based upon its evaluation in the Safety Determination, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

An analytical method is not required because EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Two comments were received in response to the notice of filing. EPA reviewed the comments and to the extent that they are relevant to the tolerance exemption in this action, they asked EPA to ensure the public health against adverse effects of pesticides. EPA has evaluated the available information on Clonostachys rosea strain CR-7, including toxicological and potential exposure information, and concluded, in accordance with the statutory requirements of FFDCA, that the exemption would be safe. The commenters provided no basis for a different conclusion.

This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the new information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3701, as adopted in the LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement Report and Order, FCC 19-21, published at 84 FR 11233 (March 26, 2019). OMB approved OMB Control Number 3060-1178 on July 30, 2019. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3701.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 30, 2019 for the new information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3701, as amended, in the LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement Report and Order, MB Dkt. No. 18-214, GN Docket No. 12-268, FCC 19-21 (rel. March 15, 2019). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1178. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1178.

Title: TV Broadcast Relocation Fund Reimbursement Form, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399; Section 73.3700(e), Reimbursement Rules; Section 73.3701, Reimbursement Under the Reimbursement Expansion Act.

Form Number: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,400 respondents; 52,800 responses.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1-4 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement, Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 98,800 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $15,000,000.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 157 and 309(j) as amended; and Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is some need for confidentiality with this collection of information. Invoices, receipts, contracts, and other cost documentation submitted along with the form will be kept confidential in order to protect the identification of vendors and the terms of private contracts between parties. Vendor name and Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) or Tax Payer Identification Number (TIN) will not be disclosed to the public.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: This submission was made to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the approval of new information collection requirements contained within the Commission's Report and Order, LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities Through Incentive Auction, MB Docket No. 18-214 and GN Docket No. 12-268, FCC 19-21, (March 15, 2019), 84 FR 11233 (March 26, 2019) (LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement Report and Order). The LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement Report and Order adopts rules to implement Congress' directive in the 2018 Reimbursement Expansion Act (REA) that the Commission reimburse certain Low Power Television and television translator stations and FM broadcast stations, for costs incurred as a result of the Commission's broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. In the REA, Congress provided additional funding for the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund and expanded the list of entities eligible to receive reimbursement for costs reasonably incurred as a result of the reorganization of broadcast television spectrum to include LPTV/translator and FM stations. The LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement Report and Order adopts rules relating to eligibility, expenses, and procedures the Commission will use to provide reimbursement to these entities and mandates the use of various measures designed to protect the Reimbursement Fund against waste, fraud, and abuse. This submission was made to implement the Commission's directive to add LPTV, TV Translators, and FM broadcast stations to this information collection.

In the LPTV, TV Translator, and FM Reimbursement Report and Order, the Commission delegated to the Media Bureau the authority to modify current FCC Form 2100, Schedule 399, TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund Reimbursement Form (Reimbursement Form), to add all newly eligible LPTV, TV Translator, and FM broadcast entities. The Media Bureau has, therefore, added questions and certifications to the Reimbursement Form to accommodate these newly eligible broadcast entities. Specifically, in order to protect the Reimbursement Fund against waste, fraud, and abuse, all newly eligible broadcast entities that propose to request reimbursement for eligible expenses must certify on the Reimbursement Form that they meet the specified eligibility criteria and provide information regarding their affected broadcasting equipment and the estimated costs eligible for reimbursement. This information collection is otherwise unchanged as already approved by OMB.

This final rule is organized as follows:

For access to docket FMCSA-2012-0103 to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

FMCSA revises its regulations governing the lease and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). This rule excludes from the lease and interchange requirements motor carriers that operate CMVs and have active operating authority registration  1 with FMCSA to transport passengers—hereafter called “authorized carriers” or “carriers with operating authority” for the sake of simplicity. This rule also excludes financial leases. 2 For leases between authorized carriers, the assignment of responsibility for regulatory compliance requires no additional regulatory obligations because FMCSA believes their identity can be determined by other means, principally because each authorized for-hire motor carrier must conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own authority, with its owned, leased, or borrowed vehicles, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

The rule (1) revises the definition of lease to exclude authorized carriers that grant the use of their vehicles to each other; (2) removes the May 27, 2015, final rule's marking requirements and reinstates the previous vehicle marking requirements with slight modifications; (3) revises the provision allowing a delay in the completion of a lease during certain emergencies; and (4) removes the requirement that motor carriers chartered for a trip who lease a CMV from another carrier to provide the transportation must notify the tour operator or group of passengers about the lease and the lessor.

The Agency estimates that an annual average of 8,366 motor carriers of passengers and 547,034 passenger-carrying CMV trips will experience regulatory relief under this final rule. Approximately 75 percent of these passenger carriers and CMV trips will experience full regulatory relief and will no longer be subject to the lease and interchange requirements of the 2015 final rule. The remaining 25 percent of these passenger carriers and CMV trips will experience partial regulatory relief and remain subject to reduced lease and interchange requirements, compared to those of the 2015 final rule.

As presented in Table 1, the Agency estimates that the rule will result in a cost savings of $76.5 million on an undiscounted basis, $67.7 million discounted at 3 percent, and $58.5 million discounted at 7 percent over the 10-year analysis period, expressed in 2016 dollars. On an annualized basis, this equates to a 10-year cost savings of $7.9 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $8.3 million at a 7 percent discount rate. This final rule has total costs less than zero, and is therefore a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

The regulatory evaluation for the 2015 final rule addressed the potential safety benefits of lease and interchange requirements for motor carriers of passengers. 3 There was insufficient data and empirical evidence to demonstrate a measurable quantitative relationship between lease and interchange requirements for passenger-carrying CMVs and improved safety outcomes such as reduced frequency and/or severity of crashes or reduced frequency of violations. Therefore, FMCSA performed a threshold analysis, also referred to as a break-even analysis, estimating the reduction in crashes that would need to occur as a consequence of the 2015 final rule for the benefits of the rule to exactly offset the estimated costs of the rule.

In considering the potential impact to safety benefits from this final rule, the Agency notes that there remains insufficient data and empirical evidence to demonstrate a measurable quantitative relationship between lease and interchange requirements for passenger-carrying CMVs and improved safety outcomes. Lease and interchange requirements for motor carriers of passengers improve the ability of the Agency and our State partners to attribute inspection, compliance, enforcement, and safety data to the correct motor carrier and driver, allowing FMCSA and our State partners to more accurately identify unsafe carriers and initiate appropriate interventions. FMCSA believes that the lease and interchange requirements of this rule are a less costly and burdensome regulatory approach than the requirements of the 2015 final rule, yet still enable safety officials and the public to identify the passenger carrier responsible for safety because each authorized for-hire motor carrier must conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own authority, with its owned, leased, or borrowed vehicles, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs. The Agency does not anticipate any change to safety benefits as a result of the rule.

This rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act), as amended.

The 1935 Act authorizes DOT to “prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)). 4

The 1984 Act confers on DOT authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and CMVs. “At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely . . . ; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators” (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). Section 32911 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 818, July 6, 2012] enacted a fifth requirement, i.e., to ensure that “(5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title” [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)]. 5

The 1984 Act also includes more general authority to “(8) prescribe recordkeeping . . . requirements; . . . and (10) perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)). 6

This rule imposes legal and recordkeeping requirements consistent with the 1935 and 1984 Acts on certain for-hire and private passenger carriers that operate CMVs, to enable safety officials and the public to identify the passenger carrier responsible for safety. Although the USDOT number serves a similar function, it does not assign responsibility when CMVs are exchanged between two or more parties, leaving an information gap filled by this rule. Currently, many passenger-carrying CMVs and drivers are rented, loaned, leased, interchanged, assigned, and reassigned with few records and little formality, thus obscuring the operational safety responsibility of certain industry participants. The more accurate, targeted enforcement allowed by this rule will help the Agency meet the mandate of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that passenger-carrying CMVs, like other vehicles, are “operated safely.” The rule does not address the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)-(4). Because this rule has only indirect and minimal application to drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs—at most, their employers might require them to pick up a lease document and place it on the vehicle, though that task could also be assigned to other employees—FMCSA believes that coercion of drivers to violate the rule will not occur (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)).

Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must also consider their “costs and benefits” (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those factors are discussed in this final rule.

FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47764) (2018 NPRM), that proposed several changes to the lease and interchange requirements added to 49 CFR part 390 by the 2015 final rule (80 FR 30164). The proposals included narrowing the applicability of the rule, excluding certain contracts and other agreements between motor carriers of passengers with operating authority from the definition of lease and the associated regulatory requirements, excluding financial leases, 7 and returning the § 390.21(e) marking requirement to its July 1, 2015, state with slight modifications to add references to leased vehicles. The NPRM also proposed to revise the delayed writing of a lease during certain emergencies; remove the 24-hour lease notification requirement; and extend the compliance date for the 2015 final rule to January 1, 2021, to give the Agency sufficient time to complete this final rule.

Eighteen comments to the 2018 NPRM were received from the following parties: American Bus Association (ABA), United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Greyhound Lines, Coach USA, Adirondack Trailways, Annett Bus Lines, Southern Tier Stages, Northwest Motorcoach Association, Peter Pan Bus Lines, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Company, Academy Bus, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, FlixBus Inc., Pacific Coachways Charter Services, Thielen Bus Lines, 8 and a private citizen.

Extension of the compliance date was supported by ABA, Academy Bus, Coach USA, Adirondack Trailways, Annett Bus Lines, Southern Tier Stages, Inc., Northwest Motorcoach Association, Peter Pan Bus Lines, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, UMA, Greyhound, Thielen Bus Lines, and Pacific Coachways Charter Services.

On December 4, 2018, FMCSA published a final rule extending the compliance date for the 2015 final rule to January 1, 2021 (83 FR 62505). This final rule will use the January 1, 2021 compliance date set by the December 2018 final rule.

The NPRM proposed revising the general applicability section to add two exceptions to the applicability requirements of the lease and interchange rule. Under the NPRM, section 390.401(b) would be modified in several ways. First, a new exception in paragraph (b)(1) would exclude from the rule contracts and agreements between passenger carriers with active passenger carrier operating authority registration  9 when one such carrier acquires transportation services from another such carrier. Second, the 2015 exception for financial leases would be revised to remove the requirement that the bank or similar financial organization, manufacturer, or dealer must be a motor carrier to utilize the exception from the rule. This is because such entities are motor carriers if they move their vehicle inventory between business locations before purchases. Third, as proposed, the limited exception for passenger-carrying CMVs exchanged or interchanged between or among commonly owned and controlled motor carriers would be removed.

Fourth, as proposed, the limited exception for passenger-carrying CMVs exchanged or interchanged between or among motor carriers that are a party to a revenue pooling agreement approved by the STB in accordance with 49 U.S.C 14302 would be removed. All passenger carriers that are commonly owned and controlled or participate in STB-approved revenue pooling agreements operate in interstate commerce and should have operating authority. Under the NPRM, an authorized carrier that obtains a vehicle from another commonly owned and controlled authorized carrier or another authorized participant in an STB-approved pooling agreement, would not be subject to the lease and interchange requirement. Accordingly, a separate exception for carriers operating under an STB-approved pooling agreement would no longer be necessary.

Greyhound Lines, Coach USA, Adirondack Trailways, Annett Bus Lines, Southern Tier Stages, Northwest Motorcoach Association, Peter Pan Bus Lines, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Company, Academy Bus, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, FlixBus Inc., Pacific Coachways Charter Services, Thielen Bus Lines, ABA, and UMA supported the proposed general applicability section, including the proposed active operating authority registration exception, maintaining the financial lease exception, and the removal of the two limited exceptions for commonly owned and controlled authorized carriers and STB-approved pooling agreements.

The UMA commented that the rule should not compel two or more carriers, all possessing the requisite valid Federal operating authority, to enter a lease they would not otherwise enter when engaging each other's services. UMA believes that inspections and crashes should be attributed to the chartered, contracted, or subcontracted carrier that possesses the sole, direct responsibility for compliance and control of vehicle maintenance and driver qualifications and behavior.

Academy Bus adds this “is a key issue to allow legally operating carriers to utilize the services of other legally operating carriers to meet demand fluctuations. Other carriers provide their buses and drivers to complete sub-contracted work. The recipient maintains their own operating authority, own insurance program and manage their own operations. The carrier sub-contracting the work has no input into the sub-contracted (recipient) carrier's operations. There is no ambiguity as to what buses on the road are operated by which company and/or authority. This is not a lease issue as there is no control over the other carrier's equipment or drivers.”

The Agency adopts without change the proposed general applicability section to the leasing requirements for passenger carriers, including the proposed exception for passenger carriers with active operating authority registration, maintaining the financial lease exception, and the removal of the two limited exceptions for commonly owned and controlled authorized carriers and STB-approved pooling agreements. The lease and interchange regulations do not directly affect safety. Rather, they help FMCSA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and State safety officials to identify the passenger carrier responsible for safety and to assign inspection, compliance, crash, and enforcement data to the correct carrier and driver, allowing the Agency, NTSB, and the States to more accurately identify unsafe and high risk carriers and to take appropriate action. The changes made by this rule will not adversely affect safety because authorized carriers involved in chartering (or subcontracting) with each other assume responsibility for their own regulatory compliance, and are readily identifiable. In addition, banks or similar financial organizations, manufacturers, or dealers: (a) Must not be a motor carrier in order to use the exception from this leasing rule; (b) will be deemed a private motor carriers of property when moving its empty passenger vehicle inventory between business locations before purchases; and (c) will have to comply fully with all 49 CFR parts 300 to 399 regulations during these moves of empty passenger vehicle inventory between business locations.

The Agency proposed to revise the definition of lease in § 390.5 to include only contracts and agreements in which a motor carrier grants the use of a passenger-carrying CMV to another motor carrier when at least one of the motor carriers is not an authorized carrier. 10 Authorized carriers of passengers routinely assist one another by providing transportation services during demand surges, emergencies, or events that require more than their available capacity. These common agreements, some of which amount to subcontracting, will not meet the regulatory definition of a lease in this final rule. Authorized carriers or passengers that are hired by another authorized carrier of passengers have traditionally assumed responsibility for their own regulatory compliance and liability. This practice has long been acceptable to the insurance industry. Furthermore, authorized carriers of passengers are readily identifiable to enforcement personnel, making a separate lease agreement assigning regulatory responsibility unnecessary.

The definition of lease was proposed to be narrowed by including only contracts and agreements granting the use of a passenger-carrying CMV between motor carriers when one (or more) such carrier does not have active operating authority registration. The term lease also has been revised as proposed with added language to include circumstances when no compensation is specified. The terms lessee and lessor have both been revised slightly to specify that the granting of passenger-carrying CMV usage is through a lease.

The ABA, UMA, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton, Academy Bus LLC, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, Thielen Bus Lines, and Coach USA support the Agency's proposal to exclude from the definition of lease chartering between or among authorized passenger carriers. ABA writes “This change is consistent with the Agency's stated goal of ensuring a lessor relinquishes all control of a passenger carrying commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for the full term of a lease. In the case of chartering or subcontracting, there is no surrender of the vehicle and thus these types of operations do not fit within definition of a lease. During a charter transaction, the vehicles remain within the control of the respective charter parties, each party is responsible for dispatching and maintaining its respective vehicles, and each party is responsible for regulatory compliance. Thus, in-line with FMCSA's underlying oversight philosophy, each carrier in a charter transaction is held accountable for maintaining its own respective operating authority. This is the fundamental basis by which FMCSA conducts enforcement and can ensure carriers remain compliant. Alternatively, applying the same logic, for carriers with no operating authority, a lease requirement demonstrating the full surrender of the vehicle for the entire term of the lease also supports FMCSA's oversight philosophy by ensuring a responsible carrier with operating authority is always controlling the vehicles operating on the road, thereby limiting opportunities to circumvent the law.”

The Agency adopts without change the proposed exception to the leasing requirements for passenger carriers with active operating authority.

Before the 2015 rule, a motor carrier operating a CMV under a rental agreement having a term of not more than 30 calendar days could mark the CMV with either (1) the name and USDOT identification number of the lessee, or (2) the name and USDOT identification number of the lessor if, in the latter case, a fully complete lease is carried on the rented CMV during the full term of the lease. The 2015 final rule required that a motor carrier operating a passenger-carrying CMV under a lease must add an additional marking device on the CMV temporarily on the right (curb) side of the vehicle on or near the front passenger door. The 2015 rule's temporary device would show the legal or trade name and USDOT number of the carrier operating the vehicle, preceded by the words “operated by.”

Industry commenters to the 2016 NOI and the 2017 proposal argued that the 2015 final rule imposes burdensome marking requirements that are impractical, and that there are less burdensome ways to address the Agency's concerns.

The 2018 NPRM proposed to eliminate the cost of additional marking of the vehicles while maintaining all of the information necessary for enforcement officials to identify the carrier for regulatory compliance. FMCSA also proposed to add paragraph (e)(2)(v) to allow a passenger-carrying CMV operating under the 48-hour emergency exception pursuant to § 390.403(a)(2) to be excepted from paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) and (iv) regarding a lease document with required information being carried on the vehicle, provided the lessor and lessee comply with the requirements of the provision in § 390.403(a)(2).

The ABA, UMA, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton, Academy Bus LLC, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, Thielen Bus Lines, and Coach USA support removing the 2015 final rule's CMV marking requirements and restoring the previous § 390.21(e) with slight modifications to comport with the leasing requirements proposed under the 2018 NPRM. ABA noted that “This change addresses the industry's concerns with the impracticality of the 2015 final rule requirements while still providing enforcement officials with sufficient information to identify carriers for regulatory compliance. By restoring the marking requirements of the pre-2015 final rule, the Agency is addressing a major industry concern that threatened to severely restrict current operations, particularly at high-volume periods, leading to a reduction of capacity in the system without providing any additional safety benefit. As well, FMCSA's proposed modifications to 49 CFR 390.21(e), to address operations under a lease agreement, are sufficiently tailored to ensure enforcement officials continue to have access to appropriate information in those circumstances.”

The Agency agrees with these comments and implements the marking revision as proposed. Enforcement officials will be able to use the markings on the sides of the passenger CMV and the lease or the § 390.403(a)(2) summary document to determine the identity of the carrier responsible for safety and to assign inspection, compliance, crash, and enforcement data to the correct carrier and driver. FMCSA has therefore concluded that this change will not adversely affect safety.

Section 390.21 in this final rule is similar to the text in effect before the May 27, 2015, final rule. FMCSA removes the special marking regulations for leased and interchanged passenger-carrying CMVs in paragraph (f). Section 390.21 has been revised to treat leased passenger-carrying CMVs like all other rented CMVs. For a lease of 30 calendar days or less, the lessee can opt to mark the vehicle with either the lessee's information or the lessor's information. However, the latter would require a fully executed copy of the lease be carried on the vehicle, unless the CMV is being operated for up to 48 hours under the emergency related provisions of § 390.403(a)(2).

If the motor carrier is operating a passenger-carrying CMV under a lease or rental agreement for more than 30 calendar days, the CMV must be marked with the lessee's identification information. In a lease situation, the operating motor carrier is the lessee. These revised regulations address petitioners' concerns that there is no easy way to display a temporary marking on certain passenger-carrying motor vehicles for short term leases. FMCSA sets a compliance date of January 1, 2021, for passenger-carrying CMVs subject to the lease and interchange rules, which is identical to the compliance date for the rules themselves. To be clear, a transaction involving a motor carrier operating a passenger-carrying CMV financed by a bank or similar financial organization, or provided by a manufacturer or dealership for demonstration purposes or to replace a vehicle being serviced or repaired, is not subject to the lease and interchange requirements in 49 CFR part 390 subpart G as provided by the 2015 final rule and retained in § 390.401(b)(2) Financial leases. None of these financial lease arrangements is considered to be a lease, interchange, or rental of a CMV under the definition of lease in § 390.5 because banks and other similar financial organizations do not operate passenger-carrying CMVs as a motor carrier. In these cases, the motor carrier that is granted use of the passenger-carrying CMV has full responsibility for the operation of such vehicle and compliance with the vehicle marking requirements in § 390.21 for the duration of the arrangement. However, it should also be noted that a motor carrier that obtained a passenger-carrying CMV through a loan from a bank or similar financial organization, may be responsible for compliance if it leases that vehicle to another motor carrier of passengers.

The 2018 NPRM proposed to remove the requirement in the 2015 rule's § 390.305 to notify the passenger group or their representative within 24 hours after the primary contractor reassigns the transportation to a subcontractor.

The ABA, UMA, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton, Academy Bus LLC, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, Thielen Bus Lines, and Coach USA support FMCSA's proposal to remove the 24-hour lease notification requirement for subcontracted charter arrangements. Multiple commenters said that if this requirement remained in place it would be very difficult for motorcoach operators to maintain the flexibility required to address emergency situations and public necessity. They wrote that it would be impractical in terms of meeting customer needs when time schedules for charter customers often restrict motor carriers' ability to notify tour operators, unduly burdening the operator. Further, they wrote that such notifications would not necessarily provide any added safety benefit. Instead, they believe that FMCSA ensures a greater safety benefit when all carriers providing charter service have operating authority, either under their own USDOT number or established under a formal lease arrangement as proposed under the 2018 NPRM. UMA commented that “This provision was one of the least objectionable of the 2015 final rule by passenger carriers, indicative of the fact that most passenger carriers advise their customers and/or passengers of changes.”

The Agency removes the customer notification requirements, as proposed. The Agency agrees with the comments received that the notifications would have imposed burdens on the passenger carrier industry and is more about customer protection than directly linked to safety.

When passengers are on a CMV and an emergency occurs that requires a replacement vehicle from another motor carrier, the 2015 rule allows the two carriers to postpone writing a lease or other written agreement for up to 48 hours. The Agency believed the 48-hour window would provide ample time for the parties to document the transaction.

One of the issues listed in the 2016 NOI was that FMCSA would reconsider expanding applicability of the 48-hour delay provision for preparing a lease to include emergencies when passengers are not actually on board a bus (81 FR 59952, Aug. 31, 2016). FMCSA provided examples of events that might require a motor carrier to obtain a replacement vehicle immediately:

• Buses might be needed to transport stranded passengers in the event that Amtrak or airline service was suspended or disrupted. A bus operator contracted to provide emergency service might need to obtain additional drivers and vehicles without delay;

• Last minute maintenance or mechanical issues, or driver illness, might arise late in the evening or during the night (such as on a multi-day charter or tour trip), or just prior to picking up a group for a charter or scheduled service run.

In the 2017 proposal, FMCSA explained that it intended to broaden the emergency 48-hour delay provision for preparing a lease authorized by 49 CFR 390.303(a)(2) and remove the requirement that passengers actually be on board a bus when the exception occurs.

Based on comments to the 2016 NOI and 2017 proposal, the 2018 NPRM adopted the petitioners' recommendation to expand the regulatory exception that permits the delayed writing of a lease during certain emergencies ( e.g., a crash, the vehicle is disabled) including when no passengers are on the vehicle. FMCSA proposed to move the exception in 49 CFR 390.303(a)(2) to 49 CFR 390.403(a)(2). If a motor carrier obtains a replacement vehicle from, or subcontracts for service with, another motor carrier, the motor carriers may delay writing of a lease during these emergency situations. However, a summary document signed and dated by the lessee's driver or available company official must state: “[Carrier A, USDOT number, telephone number] has leased this vehicle to [Carrier B, USDOT number, telephone number] pursuant to 49 CFR 390.403(a)(2)” and the summary document must be carried on the replacement vehicle for the duration of the lease. Enforcement officials will be able to use this summary document to determine the identity of the carrier responsible for regulatory compliance.

ABA, UMA, Jefferson Bus Lines, Plymouth & Brockton, Academy Bus LLC, DeCamp Bus Lines, Burlington Trailways, Thielen Bus Lines, and Coach USA support the 2018 NPRM's proposal. ABA writes, “this is a sound change that properly captures emergency situations for when passengers are and are not on a vehicle. It also provides added flexibility to address unexpected situations that have little lead time and require short-term replacement vehicles. Additional flexibility, when needing to meet customer needs both in the interest of safety and comfort, is critical in terms of successfully conducting passenger operations.”

UMA requested clarification in this final rule that “. . . the caveat that two or more passenger carriers possessing operating authority are not compelled to enter into a lease continues to apply.” UMA believes that the general exception from the leasing requirements for passenger carriers with active operating authority in proposed § 390.401(b)(1) supersedes the delayed-lease provision in proposed § 390.403(a)(2) when both carriers in a replacement vehicle scenario have operating authority.

FMCSA implements the delayed-lease provision as proposed. UMA's understanding is correct; an authorized carrier hiring a replacement CMV from another authorized carrier is not subject to the delayed-lease provision of § 390.403(a)(2). As stated above, enforcement officials will be able to use the 48-hour lease delay exception summary document to determine the identity of the carrier responsible for safety and to assign inspection, compliance, crash, and enforcement data to the correct carrier and driver. This will allow the Agency to identify unsafe and high risk carriers and to take appropriate action. Because the exception's summary document must be signed and dated by the lessee's driver or available company official and carried on the replacement vehicle for the duration of the lease, the vehicle will be readily identifiable. FMCSA has concluded that this change will not adversely affect safety.

The lease and interchange requirements have been revised, as proposed, by moving § 390.303(a)(1)(iii), which covers written agreements governing the renting, borrowing, loaning, or similar transfer of a passenger-carrying CMV from another party, to § 390.403(a)(1), which makes paragraph (a)(1)(iii) unnecessary.

Section 390.403(b) specifies the contents of lease and interchange documents. This paragraph requires the lease, interchange agreement, or other agreement to contain: (1) The name of the vehicle manufacturer, the year of manufacture, and the last 6 digits of the Vehicle Identification Number; (2) the legal names, contact information, and signatures  11 of both parties; (3) the time and date when the lease begins and ends; and (4) a statement that the lessee has exclusive possession and control of the leased vehicle and is responsible for regulatory compliance.

Previous § 390.303(b)(4)(i)-(iii) was a slightly revised version of 49 CFR 376.12(c)(1), (2) and (4). Paragraph (b)(4)(i) is essential because it sets forth the basic reason for a lease from FMCSA's point of view, namely to assign full responsibility for regulatory compliance to the lessee. As proposed in the 2018 NPRM, FMCSA makes this paragraph more concise, moves paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to § 390.403(b)(4)(ii), and retains only the last sentence of that provision. Paragraph (b)(4)(iii) in the 2015 final rule is a useful disclaimer, should questions arise about the status of the lessor (contractor or employee) in a tax context, but FMCSA does not believe it is essential. Therefore, FMCSA has shortened paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) and has removed paragraph (b)(4)(iii).

FMCSA removes the requirement in previous § 390.303(b)(5) that the lease contain a statement that the lessee is responsible for compliance with the insurance requirements of 49 CFR part 387.

Previous § 390.303(c) and (d) have been merged and made more concise and transferred to § 390.403(c), which states that a copy of the lease must be carried in the passenger-carrying CMV during the period of the lease or interchange agreement. Both the lessee and lessor retain the lease or interchange agreement for 1 year afterwards.

Previous § 390.303(e) regarding receipts has been removed. FMCSA has decided it does not need receipts when vehicles are surrendered to the lessee and returned to the lessor. If FMCSA or another government enforcement agency sought to assign a safety incident to the lessee or the lessor based on a lease or other agreement that had already been terminated, the former parties to the lease would have to decide how to document that premature termination.As proposed, FMCSA removes the requirements of § 390.303(f) for additional temporary markings of leased and interchanged passenger-carrying CMVs, and returns to the text of the marking rule in § 390.21(e) that was effective on July 1, 2015, with slight modifications. The modifications add references to leased passenger-carrying CMVs in paragraph (e) to provide an option similar to that for rented CMVs. This modification would eliminate the cost of additional marking of the vehicles while maintaining all of the information necessary for enforcement officials to identify the carrier for regulatory compliance.

No comments were received about these lease and interchange requirements in § 390.403 covering written agreements governing the renting, borrowing, loaning, or similar transfer of a passenger-carrying CMV from another party.

As the Agency received no comments about the proposed § 390.403 lease and interchange requirements for passenger carriers, the requirements are adopted with a reference to the compliance date. FMCSA adds a January 1, 2021, compliance date for passenger-carrying CMVs subject to the lease and interchange rules to § 390.401's introductory phrase.

This final rule helps FMCSA, NTSB, and State safety officials to identify the passenger carrier responsible for safety and to assign inspection, compliance, crash, and enforcement data to the correct carrier and driver, allowing the Agency, NTSB, and other enforcement officials to more accurately identify the carrier for regulatory compliance, identify unsafe and high risk carriers, and to take appropriate action. FMCSA has concluded that the changes in the lease and interchange requirements of this final rule will not adversely affect safety.

A private citizen, Lawrence F. Hughes, requested clarification of the implementation example for “Subcontracting Among Regular Route Authorized Carriers” [83 FR 47764, at 47773] and restated below under section VII. B. In the example, authorized carrier A hires authorized carrier B to continue authorized carrier A's regular-route transportation service to carrier A's regular-route trip destination. Mr. Hughes argues that the example lacks necessary details to be sufficiently clear as to the circumstances when it applies, and that the example fails to note when it does not apply and the rules for leases must be followed. He suggested either clarification of the example or a change in the method by which FMCSA registers motor carriers of passengers.

First, changing the method by which FMCSA registers motor carriers of passengers is outside the scope of the 2018 NPRM.

Second, regardless of whether the active operating authority registration is of the subtype “regular route” or “charter and special transportation,” each authorized for-hire motor carrier must conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own authority, with its owned, leased, or borrowed vehicles, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

Third, the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) [Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 880, Dec. 29, 1995, codified at 49 U.S.C. 13902] eliminated “regular route” or “charter and special transportation” limitations when registering most motor carriers of passengers. Before ICCTA, the statute required all for-hire motor carrier of passengers to administratively register with the ICC as subtype “regular route” or “charter and special transportation” motor passenger carrier, and generally prohibited that motor carrier from doing the other subtypes of passenger transportation service, unless granted additional operating authority to do so. The ICCTA eliminated these administrative labels, except for registrations for motor carriers that are “public recipients of governmental assistance.”  12 Thus, a motor carrier of passengers previously issued “regular route” operating authority has general authority to perform “charter and special transportation,” whatever its certificate, permit, or license may say. Similarly, a motor carrier of passengers previously issued “charter and special transportation” operating authority also has general authority to perform “regular route” service. This elimination of administrative service terminology is similar to the ICCTA's removal of the registration labels and transportation service limitations of “common” and “contract” motor carriers. 13

However, if carrier A hires carrier B to conduct a regular-route passenger transportation service and at least one of the two carriers does not have active operating authority registraton, then the lease and interchange requirements of this final rule apply.

Greyhound, Coach USA, and Adirondack Trailways asked FMCSA (1) to clarify that entities that lease buses or drivers and control their operations to the extent of control exercised by FlixBus, OurBus, and similar technology entities, are bound by the requirements of the rule; and (2) to determine that the services of these entities make them motor carriers “providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation”—not brokers—and subject them to the full range of FMCSA regulations. They argue that there is undisputed evidence FlixBus, OurBus, and similar entities should be subject to the 2018 NPRM and this final rule.

FlixBus, Inc. argued that the Agency should reject requests to make it subject to the 2018 NPRM's proposed requirements and other FMCSA regulations as a “motor carrier.” FlixBus claims it is a transportation technology company that does not own, lease, or operate passenger-carrying CMVs. It does not employ drivers. It provides a consumer-facing platform travelers can use to purchase transportation provided by one of its bus partners.

FlixBus also argues FMCSA should disregard the Greyhound, Coach USA, and Adirondack Trailways requests because their comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. FlixBus argues this rulemaking addresses rules that will apply to motor carriers of passengers that lease and interchange vehicles; it does not attempt to address which entities are or should be regulated as “motor carriers.” “Petitioners cannot unilaterally expand the scope of this rulemaking through their comments, nor are those comments entitled to a substantive response.”

FMCSA agrees with FlixBus that this issue is outside the scope of the 2018 NPRM. FMCSA reviewed FlixBus, OneBus, and other similar operations. At the time, these operations were not found to be motor carriers of passengers that lease or interchange vehicles. Thus, FlixBus and OneBus are not required to comply with the terms of this final rule. Changed operations or other business models may subject companies to this rule.

Adirondack Trailways requested that its businesses be exempt from the marking requirements in § 390.21(b)(3).

FMCSA did not propose any changes to § 390.21(b)(3) and this comment is thus outside the scope of the 2018 NPRM.

The following examples were published in the NPRM and remain applicable to this final rule.

Authorized carrier A is contracted to transport a tour or travel group on a trip, but finds itself without the capacity to accommodate the group. Carrier A completely transfers the contract to authorized carrier B that has the necessary capacity. Carrier A may or may not pay a fee to carrier B for taking over the contract. A complete transfer would require carrier A to cancel its contract with the customer and carrier B to create a new contract with the customer. The final rule does not apply to these transactions because these transactions do not qualify as a “lease” (or interchange), as defined in § 390.5, of a passenger-carrying CMV.

Authorized carrier A lacks the capacity to execute a contracted trip and hires authorized carrier B to make the trip while maintaining its contract with the customer. This arrangement is documented by a charter contract between carriers A and B. Carrier A pays carrier B for the trip. This arrangement is not a lease, first because carrier B is not granting the use of a passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A, and second because both carriers are authorized carriers. Instead, carrier B is making the trip in its own name, on its own authority, with its own vehicles and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs. This final rule therefore does not apply to this arrangement.

Assuming the same facts as described above, except that authorized carrier A provides some of the transportation service while contracting with authorized carrier B for the remainder, this arrangement is not a lease, first because carrier B is not granting the use of a passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A, and second because both carriers are authorized carriers. Carrier A pays carrier B for the transportation service as part of a charter contract. Carrier B is not surrendering control of a passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A for its own use. Both carriers are authorized carriers providing transportation in their own name, on their own authority, with their own vehicles, and each is independently responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

Authorized carrier A, which provides regular route passenger transportation services according to a fixed schedule, finds itself without the capacity to execute a route. Carrier A hires authorized carrier B to continue this service. This arrangement is documented by a charter contract between carriers A and B. Carrier A pays carrier B for the transportation service. This arrangement is not a lease, first because carrier B is not granting the use of a passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A, and second because both carriers are authorized carriers. This arrangement is also not an interchange because carriers A and B are not conducting a through movement. The final rule does not apply to this arrangement. Carrier B will conduct the transportation in its own name, on its own authority, with its own vehicle(s), and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

Carrier A is exempt under 49 U.S.C. 13506 from the requirement for operating authority—for example, because of the hotel exemption in section 13506(a)(3)  14 —but finds itself without the capacity to accommodate a group that it originally intended to transport. When this occurs, carrier A hires authorized carrier B to provide charter passenger transportation of the group in whole or in part. This arrangement is documented by a charter contract between carriers A and B. Carrier A pays carrier B for the transportation service, but is not a lessee of carrier B's vehicle. Therefore, this arrangement is not a lease. Carrier B does not claim the exemption in section 13506(a)(3) but conducts the transportation in its own name, on its own authority, with its own vehicle(s) and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs. This final rule does not apply to this arrangement.

Private motor carrier of passengers A finds itself without the capacity to transport the members of its organization. Carrier A therefore hires authorized carrier B to provide charter passenger transportation of the group in whole or in part. This arrangement is documented by a charter contract between carriers A and B. Carrier A pays carrier B for the transportation service. Carrier A is not a lessee and the arrangement is not a lease or interchange because carrier B conducts the transportation in its own name, on its own authority, with its own vehicle(s) and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs. The final rule does not apply to this arrangement.

Carrier A is an exempt for-hire motor carrier of passengers (under 49 U.S.C. 13506) that finds itself without the capacity to accommodate a group it originally intended to transport. Carrier A uses a passenger-carrying CMV owned by authorized carrier B. This transaction is a lease under the final rule and is subject to its requirements because carrier A is not authorized to operate for-hire in interstate commerce. In this case, carrier B is a lessor that is surrendering control of a passenger-carrying CMVs to carrier A for the use of that carrier. Carrier A will conduct the transportation in its own name under its own safety registration ( i.e., USDOT number) with the CMV leased from carrier B, with or without drivers provided by carrier B, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

Private motor carrier of passengers A finds itself without the capacity to accommodate a group it originally intended to transport. Carrier A uses a passenger-carrying CMV owned by authorized carrier B. This transaction is a lease under this final rule and is subject to its requirements because carrier A is not authorized to operate for-hire in interstate commerce. In this case, carrier B is a lessor that is surrendering control of a passenger-carrying CMVs to carrier A for the use of that carrier. Carrier A will conduct the transportation in its own name under its own safety registration ( i.e., USDOT number) with the CMV leased from carrier B, with or without drivers provided by carrier B, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the applicable FMCSRs.

Authorized carrier A lacks the capacity to execute a contracted trip and uses a passenger-carrying CMV owned by private motor carrier of passengers, carrier B. This transaction is a lease under the final rule and is subject to its requirements because private carrier B is not authorized to operate for-hire in interstate commerce and cannot be hired to provide transportation. In this case, carrier B is a lessor that is surrendering control of its passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A. Carrier A will conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own authority, with the CMV leased from the private motor carrier of passengers, with or without drivers provided by carrier B, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

Private motor carrier of passengers A finds itself without the capacity to transport the members of its organization and uses a passenger-carrying CMV owned by private motor carrier of passengers B. This transaction is a lease under the final rule and is subject to the requirements of this rule because neither carrier has the authority to conduct for-hire operations in interstate commerce. In this case, carrier B is a lessor that is surrendering control of its passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A for the use of that carrier. Carrier A will conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own safety registration ( i.e., USDOT number), with the CMV leased from carrier B, with or without drivers provided by carrier B, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the applicable FMCSRs.

For-hire passenger carrier A had its operating authority revoked for lack of adequate insurance coverage. Carrier A wishes to generate revenue from its otherwise idle CMVs. It therefore negotiates an arrangement with authorized carrier B to surrender control of its passenger-carrying CMVs to carrier B for a fee. This arrangement is a lease under the final rule and would be subject to its requirements because carrier A is not authorized to operate for-hire in interstate commerce. In this case, carrier A is simply a lessor. Carrier B would conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own authority, with the CMVs leased from carrier A, with or without drivers provided by carrier A, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs.

The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences among nations.

Section 390.5 is amended to revise the definitions of lease, lessee, and lessor and these terms apply specifically to motor carriers of passengers.

Section 390.21 is returned nearly to the form before the May 27, 2015, final rule's effective date. In the paragraph (e) header, FMCSA replaces “Rented property-carrying commercial motor vehicles” with the phrase “Rented CMVs and leased passenger-carrying CMVs.” Throughout paragraph (e), the Agency adds the phrase “or lease” after the term “rental agreement.” When referring to a “renting motor carrier,” the Agency adds the phrase “or lessee” immediately after it. In paragraph (e)(2)(iv), in addition to the cross reference to the property-carrying leasing regulations in 49 CFR part 376, FMCSA adds a cross reference to the passenger-carrying leasing regulations in subpart G of part 390 so that the revised sentence reads “See the property-carrying leasing regulations at 49 CFR part 376 and the passenger-carrying leasing regulations at subpart G of this part for information that should be included in all leasing documents.” FMCSA adds paragraph (e)(2)(v)(A) to § 390.21 to allow the passenger-carrying CMV operating under the 48-hour emergency exception pursuant to § 390.403(a)(2) to be excepted from paragraphs § 390.21(e)(2)(iii) and (iv), provided the lessor and lessee comply with the requirements of the provision in § 390.403(a)(2). FMCSA adds § 390.21(e)(2)(v)(B) to set a January 1, 2021, compliance date for the paragraph (e) requirements for passenger-carrying CMVs subject to the lease and interchange rules under subpart G (§§ 390.401 and 390.403). This date is identical to the compliance date in §§ 390.401 and 390.403.

FMCSA removes § 390.21(f) and redesignates paragraphs (g) and (h) as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively, as they were on July 1, 2015. 15

Subpart F, including §§ 390.300T, 390.301, 390.303, and 390.305, is removed and reserved.

Subpart G, consisting of §§ 390.401 and 390.403, is added. These sections include the applicability of the final rule, the two general exceptions, the civil penalties for failure to meet applicable requirements, and the requirements for every lease or interchange.

Paragraph (a) explains the general applicability of Subpart G. The compliance date of this section is January 1, 2021.

Paragraph (b) provides two exceptions to the general rule. Paragraph (b)(1) makes the rules in §§ 390.401 and 390.403 inapplicable to contracts and agreements between motor carriers of passengers that have active FMCSA operating authority. This exception is applicable when one such motor carrier acquires transportation service(s) from another such motor carrier(s), whether those agreements are designated sub-charters, farm-out charters, subcontracts, pooling agreements approved by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, or through-service  16 agreements.

Paragraph (b)(2) makes the rules in §§ 390.401 and 390.403 inapplicable to Financial leases (however designated, e.g., lease, closed-end lease, hire purchase, lease purchase, purchase agreement, installment plan, demonstration or loaner vehicle, etc.) between a motor carrier and a bank or similar financial organization or a manufacturer or dealer of passenger-carrying CMVs. This provision repromulgates the same section of the 2015 final rule.

Paragraph (c) provides that if the use of a passenger-carrying CMV is arranged between motor carriers subject to both rules in §§ 390.401 and 390.403 and either carrier fails to meet all applicable requirements of subpart G, both motor carriers are subject to a civil penalty.

Paragraph (a)(1) sets out the two instances in which a lease or other agreement is required (and the lease or agreement must then meet the conditions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section) beginning on the compliance date of this rule, January 1, 2021. Paragraph (a)(2) allows the delayed writing of a lease or agreement after an emergency, such as a disabled vehicle, that disrupts or delays a trip, and, unlike the previous rule, does not limit the exception to times when passengers are on the bus.

Paragraph (b) specifies the four required items of any lease, sublease, or interchange document required by this rule: (1) Vehicle identification information; (2) Parties; (3) Specific duration; and (4) Exclusive possession and responsibilities.

Paragraph (c) explains when a copy of the lease or agreement must be on the passenger-carrying CMV and how long both the lessor and lessee must retain copies of the lease or agreement.

FMCSA performed an analysis of the impacts of the rule and determined it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)  17 ). This rule is not a major rule as defined under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

The Agency received eighteen comments on the 2018 NPRM. None specifically addressed the regulatory analyses that were presented in the NPRM. The only substantive change made to the regulatory evaluation from the NPRM to this final rule is that the analysis time period has been updated to reflect the December 4, 2018, extension of the compliance date for the May 2015 final rule from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2021 (83 FR 62505). Because this rule revises the regulations established in the 2015 final rule, that rule serves as the baseline against which the effects of this rule are evaluated. When the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM was performed, the compliance date for the 2015 final rule was January 1, 2019, and therefore the analysis period likewise began as of 2019. As noted, on December 4, 2018, the Agency extended the compliance date for the 2015 final rule to January 1, 2021. Therefore, the analysis period for this rule now begins as of 2021. The primary result of this change is a less than 2 percent increase in the annualized cost savings. This small increase is primarily a reflection of the slightly larger number of passenger carriers and CMV trips that experience regulatory relief in future years under the new analysis time period, consistent with the modest baseline annual industry growth rate projections used in the analysis.

As described earlier, the rule reduces the scope of the lease and interchange requirements for motor carriers of passengers. Furthermore, those passenger carriers and passenger-carrying CMV trips for which the rule remains applicable are subject to lease and interchange requirements that are reduced in comparison to those of the 2015 final rule. At the same time, FMCSA believes that the lease and interchange requirements of the rule still enable safety officials and the public to sufficiently identify the passenger carrier responsible for safety because each authorized for-hire motor carrier must conduct the transportation in its own name, under its own authority, with its owned, leased, or borrowed vehicles, and is therefore responsible for compliance with the FMCSRs. Therefore, FMCSA estimates that the rule results in a cost savings, but will not result in any change to safety benefits.

The Agency estimates that the rule will result in a cost savings of $76.5 million on an undiscounted basis, $67.7 million discounted at 3 percent, and $58.5 million discounted at 7 percent over the 10-year analysis period, expressed in 2016 dollars. On an annualized basis, this equates to a 10-year cost savings of $7.9 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $8.3 million at a 7 percent discount rate.

The rule revises regulations established in the 2015 final rule, therefore the 2015 final rule serves as the baseline against which the effects of this rule are evaluated. Many of the key inputs to this analysis of the rule are based on the same data sources and methods as those developed and used in the evaluation of the 2015 final rule, with various updates made as needed to reflect more recently available data and information. Therefore, a copy of the regulatory evaluation for the 2015 final rule is available in the docket for this final rule, and, where applicable, the Agency cites that document in the analysis below. 18 The analysis of this final rule utilizes a 10-year analysis period of 2021 to 2030, and all monetary values are expressed in 2016 dollars.

Amendment 17 removed the pre-specified incidental landing limit for overfished stocks for vessels fishing for live bait. Prior to Amendment 17, if a Coastal Pelagic Species stock were to become overfished, and even prior to adoption of a rebuilding plan, the Fishery Management Plan automatically limited retention in the live bait fishery of that stock to only incidentally caught fish with no more than 15 percent of any load being from the overfished stock.

NMFS published a Notice Availability for Amendment 17 on March 22, 2019 (84 FR 10768), and solicited public comments through May 21, 2019. NMFS received three public comments from industry representatives in support of Amendment 17. The industry representatives included the American Albacore Fishing Associations, the Sportfishing Association of California, and a private fisherman from southern California.

There are no implementing regulations associated with Amendment 17; therefore, NMFS did not promulgate a proposed and final rule to implement this amendment.