On January 31, 2019, DHS published a final rule requiring petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption, to first electronically register with USCIS during a designated registration period, unless the requirement is suspended (“H-1B registration final rule”). 1 USCIS stated in the H-1B registration final rule that it was suspending the registration requirement for the fiscal year 2020 cap season to complete required user testing of the new H-1B registration system and otherwise ensure the system and process work correctly.

Once USCIS implements the system and requires registration, USCIS will not consider an H-1B cap-subject petition to be properly filed unless it is based on a valid registration selection for the applicable fiscal year. See 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(A)( 1 ) and (h)(8)(iii)(D). USCIS will reject or deny H-1B cap-subject petitions that are not properly filed. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(8)(iii)(D).

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes DHS to establish and collect fees for adjudication and naturalization services to “ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services, including the costs of similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants.” INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). Through the collection of fees established under that authority, USCIS is primarily funded by immigration and naturalization fees charged to applicants, petitioners, and other requestors. See INA sections 286(m) and (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) and (n); 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(USCIS fees). Fees collected from individuals and entities filing immigration benefit requests are deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) and used to fund the cost of processing immigration benefit requests. 2 Consistent with that authority and USCIS' reliance on fees for its funding, DHS is amending its regulations to require a fee for submitting H-1B registrations.

On September 4, 2019, DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comments on its proposal to require a $10 fee per H-1B registration. See 84 FR 46460. DHS is amending its regulations to require a $10 fee for each registration submitted to register for the H-1B cap selection process. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(NNN). As stated in the proposed rule, USCIS operations are funded by fees collected for adjudication and naturalization services, and USCIS must expend resources to implement and maintain the registration system. Therefore, DHS is requiring a fee for submitting H-1B registrations to recover those costs.

In response to the proposed rule, DHS received 22 comments during the 30-day public comment period. There were no duplicate submissions or letters submitted through mass mailing campaigns. DHS considered all of these comment submissions. Commenters consisted of individuals (including U.S. workers), law firms, professional organizations, and advocacy groups. Some commenters expressed support for the rule and/or offered suggestions for improvement. Two commenters expressed general opposition to the rule, suggesting that DHS should not impose a fee for registration. For many of the public comments, DHS could not ascertain whether the commenter supported or opposed the proposed rule. A number of comments received addressed subjects beyond those covered by the proposed rule, and were deemed out of scope.

DHS has reviewed all of the public comments received in response to the proposed rule and is addressing relevant comments in this final rule. DHS's responses are grouped by subject area, with a focus on the most common issues and suggestions raised by commenters. DHS is not addressing comments seeking changes in U.S. laws, regulations, or agency policies that are out of scope and unrelated to the changes proposed on September 4, 2019, or to the H-1B registration system generally.

Comment: Two commenters stated that they agreed with the proposed fee without providing any additional or substantive rationale. While DHS appreciates the input, a response to these general support comments is not necessary.

Comment: Two commenters said the rule would cause an unnecessary financial obstacle to an already tedious and burdensome process for prospective immigrants. One commenter said that the additional fee would oppress minorities and put unnecessary financial barriers on families and extend the time it takes for them to receive clearance. The commenter explained that the process to become a legalized citizen is already an extensive process and extending it further could turn away families from receiving legalization.

Response: The H-1B classification is an employment-based nonimmigrant classification that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. DHS notes that this rule is not addressing the process of obtaining an immigrant visa or lawful permanent resident status. Rather, this rule addresses the fee for filing an H-1B registration which is a prerequisite to being able to file a nonimmigrant petition for a foreign worker in the H-1B nonimmigrant classification. The fee paid for the registration is a responsibility of the petitioning employer, not the foreign worker. DHS believes that a $10 fee for each registration a U.S. employer chooses to submit would not be overly burdensome for employers, especially when considering the benefits of not having to submit a full, paper-based petition as required for possible selection under the current cap selection process. Moreover, the nominal fee would assist DHS in recovering the cost of administering the electronic registration process. Requiring such a fee would not have any impact on the time to adjudicate an immigration benefit request.

Comments: A few commenters asked DHS to explain with specificity in the final rule how the payment system and payment mechanics will work. The comments related to pay.gov are as follows:

• Will DHS utilize pay.gov for the payment portal? If an employer is already registered in pay.gov, will that registration control for the H-1B registration fee payment?

• Is submission of the registration fee payment via pay.gov limited to employers, or may attorneys also submit payments via pay.gov on behalf of their U.S. employer clients? The commenter stated that attorneys should be able to submit registration fee payments via the pay.gov portal for their U.S. employer clients.

• A professional association stated that, given the limited familiarity of stakeholders with the pay.gov portal, USCIS should conduct stakeholder outreach and provide guidance and trainings on how to utilize the pay.gov portal well in advance of the initial registration period.

Response: DHS will use pay.gov for the payment portal. DHS is using the pay.gov architecture to process the payment on the back end, however, petitioners do not need to create a pay.gov account to pay the fee. Registrants only have to enter in checking/savings account information to do an ACH (Automated Clearing House) or credit/debit card information to pay via card. 3 G-28 Representatives will be able to pay on pay.gov as well, given that there is no need for an account, just basic payment details. USCIS is planning to conduct stakeholder outreach and provide training on how to use the pay.gov portal and will announce these trainings on the USCIS website.

Comments: The comments on payment sources include the following:

• An advocacy group asked if pay.gov would allow access to payment via computerized access to bank account and ACH payment systems. This commenter also asked if there would be a one-time registration per user of banking and pay.gov information.

• A professional association stated that it appears that the registration fee payment can be paid with either a debit or credit card, or with a withdrawal from a checking or savings account, but USCIS only provides a screen shot in the workflow document for the credit card payment transaction. The commenter urged USCIS to allow for the registration fee to be paid with a withdrawal from a checking or savings account (ACH), as this is a common method of payment and will better accommodate U.S. employers and immigration practitioners submitting registrations on behalf of a high volume registrants.

• A business association asked if there would be an ACH processing fee associated with using this method of payment. If so, the commenter asked if USCIS incorporated those costs into how it factored the $10/registration fee such that it would be covered by the $10 fee or in addition to the $10 fee. If the processing fee is separate from the $10 registration fee, the commenter asked how much these processing fees would add onto the $10 fee.

Response: The registration system will permit payments to be made from a bank account (checking or savings), a credit card, or debit card. No ACH fee will be charged. The registration fee cannot be made using cash, a certified (bank) check, or money order.

Comments: The comments on batch payments include the following:

• A couple of commenters asked if employers would be able to batch payments for multiple registrations.

• A business association supported the ability of the employer or representative to file registrations for more than one beneficiary under one account, but said the NPRM does not indicate how many registrations a petitioner can file at the same time or exactly how the payment system will operate. Similarly, another commenter asked whether the payment system would limit the amount of beneficiaries that can be batched for simultaneous payment at any given time.

• Another commenter also stated that they support the ability to bundle the H-1B registration fees for multiple registrations into one payment, but said it is unclear whether the pay.gov portal would permit a registrant to make several bundled registration fee payments on multiple occasions over a period of several days, or if only one bundled registration fee could be submitted during the registration period. Because large U.S. employers will likely submit registrations throughout the registration period, the commenter recommended that the system should allow registrants to make several bundled registration fee payments through the pay.gov portal.

• A business association said the final H-1B Registration Rule stated that employers would not be required to enter their corporate information for each potential beneficiary. The commenter asked if employers would be able to file information regarding the corporation, the authorized employee of the corporation, and the payment method/information used to pay the fees one time throughout this process, and if so, how that would be done.

Response: The registration system will allow for batch payments to pay the fee for multiple registrations submitted simultaneously. For example, one registrant may submit five registrations at one time and make one payment of $50 for the cost of the five registrations. There is no limit to the number of registrations that can be submitted at one time. Registrants would be able to submit as many registrations in as many batches as they see fit during the registration period. For example, a registrant could submit five registrations and pay a $50 fee on March 2, a batch of five registrations on March 5 and pay another $50 fee, and a batch of eight registrations with an $80 fee on March 15.

Registrants will not be required to enter their corporate information for each potential beneficiary. Corporate and payment information will only need to be entered one time for each batch of registrations and associated payments. However, the corporate and payment information will not carry over between subsequent batches of registrations and fees.

Comments: Additional comments on fee payment processing are as follows:

• A business association stated that they were concerned about the lack of specificity regarding how the $10 fee will be collected. The commenter wrote that, as USCIS moves to finalize this proposal, the agency should clearly lay out how employers will have to use the H-1B registration's system payment mechanism.

• An advocacy group asked how far in advance of the registration period would registration be permitted for the payment portal.

Response: DHS will use pay.gov for the payment portal, however, there is no need to register with pay.gov in order to pay for an H-1B registration. The pay.gov architecture is used only to process the payments. USCIS will advise registrants of the location of the H-1B registration portal, and any deadlines or other restrictions that will apply. The H-1B registration system will contain clear instructions for completing and submitting registrations and fees.

Comment: Two commenters wrote that the proposed fee was too low without providing an alternative amount. One commenter noted that they were in favor of requiring a fee for H-1B petitions, but that it should be a larger fee. This commenter wrote that a fee free H-1B application and the lower wages paid to those granted H-1B status provides incentive to hire non-U.S. citizens for U.S. based careers. One commenter suggested a $500 fee, while another suggested a $1,000 fee. One commenter said that based upon the assertion that the registration would be a 7-minute additional time burden, the $10 registration fee is appropriate and can be considered a nominal expense for most petitioners.

Response: First, DHS notes that the $10 registration fee is separate from and in addition to the H-1B petition filing fee. 4 The registration fee will be charged regardless of whether the potential petitioner's registration is selected; i.e. even if the petitioner may not ultimately file an H-1B petition. As stated in the NPRM, USCIS lacks sufficient data to precisely estimate the costs of the registration process. DHS proposed a $10 fee to provide an initial stream of revenue to mitigate potential fiscal effects on USCIS. Following implementation of the registration fee provided for in this rule, USCIS will gather data on the costs and burdens of administering the registration process in its next biennial fee review to determine whether a fee adjustment is necessary to ensure full cost recovery.

Comment: One commenter asked how the nominal fee will prevent large outsourcing companies from gaming the H-1B system, when their revenue is in the billions. A professional association stated that the addition of a $10 registration fee will not sufficiently deter speculative and/or fraudulent filings. Another commenter noted that requiring employers to pay a more substantial fee may protect employees from predatory employers and that we should include a provision barring employers from passing the fee on to their employees or garnishing it from their wages.

Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the purpose of the registration fee is to recover the costs of the registration system and process; however, the fee may have an added benefit of deterring frivolous registrations. USCIS will monitor the system for potential fraud and abuse ( e.g. monitoring the system to determine if employers are submitting many registrations but filing petitions based on selected registrations at a significantly lower rate, which could reflect gaming of the system to unfairly improve their odds of being selected). Further, DHS will require registrants to attest that they intend to file an H-1B petition for the beneficiary in the position for which the registration is filed. This attestation is intended to ensure that each registration is connected with a bona fide job offer and, if selected, will result in the filing of an H-1B petition.

In response to a commenter's proposal to bar employers from passing the fee on to the beneficiary (foreign worker), DHS is not adopting this suggestion because it is unnecessary and already prohibited by DOL regulations as an unauthorized deduction. See 20 CFR 655.731(b)(9)(ii) (“ . . . except that the deduction may not recoup a business expense(s) of the employer (including attorney fees and other costs connected to the performance of H-1B program functions which are required to be performed by the employer, e.g., preparation and filing of LCA and H-1B petition); . . .”). DHS notes that this prohibition encompasses the costs of an H-1B registration.

Comment: A professional association recommended that, in its calculations for how many registrations will be selected in the registration lottery, USCIS take into consideration that there may be a significantly higher rate of selected registrations resulting in unfiled, denied, or revoked petitions. This commenter also recommended that USCIS reserve enough unselected registrations that could be invited to file in the situation where the H-1B petition approval rate will not result in meeting the H-1B numerical limitations for FY 2021.

Response: When registration is not required, USCIS randomly selects a certain number of H-1B cap-subject petitions projected as needed to meet the numerical allocations. USCIS makes projections on the number of H-1B cap-subject petitions necessary to meet the numerical limits, taking into account historical data related to approvals, denials, revocations, and other relevant factors. 5 USCIS uses these projections to determine the number of petitions to select to meet, but not exceed, the 65,000 regular cap and 20,000 advanced degree exemption, although the exact percentage and number of petitions may vary depending on the applicable projections for a particular fiscal year. Similarly, in years when USCIS will use the registration system, it will project how many registrations need to be selected in order to meet, but not exceed the numerical limitations. Unselected registrations will remain on reserve for the applicable fiscal year. If USCIS determines that it needs to increase the number of registrations projected to meet the regular cap or advanced degree exemption, and select additional registrations, USCIS would select from among the registrations that are on reserve a sufficient number to meet the cap or advanced degree exemption, or re-open the registration period if additional registrations are needed to meet the new projected amount.

Comment: A commenter stated that H-1B petitioners have established willingness and ability to pay the nominal H-1B registration fee. The commenter stated a $10 fee is justifiable because the employers are the ones who pay existing H-1B related filing fees rather than investing this money to cultivate the knowledge of existing employees to better their business.

Response: DHS agrees that a $10 fee for each registration will not be overly burdensome for employers and will assist DHS in recovering the cost of administering the registration process.

Comment: Two commenters addressed the proposal's impact on small entities. A business association said USCIS stated that the $10 registration fee might minimize the possibility that larger employers could flood the system crowding out smaller, compliant firms. The commenter said it remains concerned about how the overall H-1B registration system will impact small businesses and urged USCIS to monitor and report on the filings. One commenter said that they were concerned there were not enough safeguards in place to prevent unscrupulous petitioners from flooding the H-1B system. This commenter wrote that DHS should conduct additional outreach consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), especially to small business entities, so that concerns about potential flooding of the registration system can be addressed prior to implementation.

Response: DHS has already put several safeguards in place to prevent employers from flooding the H-1B registration system, and will monitor the system throughout the registration process. As noted in the H-1B registration final rule, DHS believes it is too speculative to conclude that the H-1B registration system would result in large entities crowding out smaller entities for H-1B prospective employees. With the registration system, and the lower nominal fee, the barrier to entry associated with the registration system could result in increased participation by small entities in the competition for H-1B cap-subject nonimmigrant visas. As noted in the proposed rule, the new fee will impose a nominal compliance cost for any entity, including small entities, that choose to compete for an H-1B cap-subject visa. DHS maintains that the proposed fee will not impose a significant impact on small entities.

Comment: A professional association stated that USCIS' estimate of a 7-minute additional time burden for reading the instructions and completing the electronic fee payment was “extremely low” and appears to assume that stakeholders are familiar with the pay.gov portal, rather than first time users. However, the commenter stated that many U.S. employers and attorneys have little or no experience using the pay.gov portal. The commenter wrote that USCIS should recalculate the total public burden (in time) to take into consideration that in many, if not most cases, registrants will be accessing and navigating the pay.gov portal for the very first time when submitting initial H-1B registrations.

Response: The pay.gov screen will be seamlessly linked to the registration platform and will not require a separate log in, password, or navigation to a separate website. Paying the $10 fee will be very similar to paying for events or airline tickets, merchandise, and other orders placed online, and USCIS anticipates it will be a straightforward process for the public. In addition and as noted above, USCIS intends to conduct outreach and training on how to use the registration system, including making payments on the pay.gov portal, and will announce these trainings on the USCIS website. USCIS has received approval from OMB-OIRA to discontinue the approval of this collection of information as guidance found at the website pra.digital.gov stated that such payment transactions are not subject to the PRA.

Comment: Two commenters addressed the implementation timeframe for the proposed fee or the H-1B registration process more generally and expressed concern about the lack of a definitive decision from USCIS to implement the new H-1B registration requirement to which the $10 registration fee will be attached. These commenters asked that USCIS notify the public as soon as possible with a final decision on whether usability testing supports proceeding with the registration tool. One commenter stated that, without a final decision and proper notice being provided to stakeholders at this point in time, many business have already begun expending resources in the preparation of various supporting documents for the cap-subject H-1B petitions as they normally would, thus negating the cost savings intended by the rule. One commenter noted that if USCIS does not announce that it will proceed with registration until shortly before the FY2021 cap season begins in April 2020, it will likely be most harmful to the interests of smaller employers who have less overall resources to deal with new regulatory requirements in a short period of time. A few commenters stated that, no later than November 1, 2019, USCIS should publicly announce its decision to implement the registration system in the Spring of 2020 for FY 2021 cap-subject H-1B cases. An advocacy group stated that this notice could be posted on the agency's website or could come with the publication of the H-1B registration fee final rule, so it can be announced in the Federal Register months before any registration period would be opened. This commenter also said USCIS should indicate as early as possible the dates when the specific registration period will occur and should consider a registration period longer than the 2-week minimum registration period identified in the final rule.

Response: USCIS intends to implement the registration process for FY 2021, subject to continued testing of the system. DHS will publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce the initial implementation of the H-1B registration process in advance of the cap season in which it will first implement the requirement. USCIS will notify the public about the implementation timeframe of the registration system and the initial registration period as soon as possible, and will provide stakeholders with plenty of notice prior to implementing the registration requirement.

Comment: One commenter asked that as DHS moves to finalize and implement the H-1B registration fee, it continue public outreach on usability testing as a means to further assess the technical details of the registration mechanics. A business association said USCIS should (1) engage stakeholders and fully vet the new platform before instituting the electronic registration system and (2) extend the registration period to at least 30 days to account for any system outages, difficulties in entering data, or other unforeseen problems.

Response: USCIS intends to continue stakeholder outreach and training prior to the initial implementation of the registration system to allow stakeholders the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the electronic registration process. USCIS will provide guidance on how to use the registration system and edit registrations prior to opening the registration system for the initial registration period. DHS will announce the duration of the initial registration period in the Federal Register notice.

DHS received many comments that were unrelated to the proposed revisions regarding the registration fee. Many of these comments would require Congressional action or additional regulatory action by DHS unrelated to the H-1B registration fee requirement. Although DHS has summarized the comments it received below, DHS is not providing substantive responses to those comments as they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. To the extent that comments are seeking further revisions to the H-1B program, DHS recognizes that additional regulatory changes could improve the H-1B program and intends to propose a separate rule to strengthen the H-1B visa classification. As stated in the Unified Agenda of Proposed Regulatory Actions, 83 FR 57803, DHS plans to propose to revise the definition of specialty occupation to increase focus on obtaining the best and the brightest foreign nationals via the H-1B program, and revise the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship to better protect U.S. workers and wages. In addition, DHS will propose additional requirements designed to ensure employers pay appropriate wages to H-1B nonimmigrant workers.

Comments from the public outside the scope of this rulemaking concerned the following issues:

• Some commenters provided suggestions for improvement of the H-1B program in general, including to raise the H-1B salary minimum.

• Some commenters said DHS should review the B-1, [Optional Practical Training] OPT, EB-1, H-4, [Employment Authorization Document] EAD, and L-1/L-2 visa programs to address unfairness, reduce fraud and abuse within the programs, address specific companies known for abuses, and protect wages of American workers.

• One commenter expressed safety concerns that H-1B workers are managing critical infrastructure at state government facilities due to an influx of H-1B workers in the fields of IT, human resources, and contracting.

• Another commenter said H-1B is a “legalized scam.”

Response: DHS appreciates these suggestions, however, DHS did not propose to address these issues in the proposed rule, therefore these suggestions fall outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

As discussed previously, DHS is finalizing this rule as proposed.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs, benefits, and transfers of available 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.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OIRA has not reviewed this rule. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (April 5, 2017).

DHS will amend its regulations to require a fee for each registration submitted to register for the H-1B cap selection process. DHS will require a fee of $10 per registration to recover some of the costs that are associated with implementing and maintaining the H-1B cap registration system. USCIS suspended the registration requirement for the FY 2020 H-1B cap selection process. DHS recognizes that the registration requirement was established to provide efficiency savings to both USCIS and H-1B cap-subject petitioners associated with the current paper-based cap selection process. In the H-1B registration final rule, DHS estimated significant cost savings for both USCIS and those H-1B petitioners. DHS stands by that analysis and believes that USCIS will still reap significant efficiency and cost savings when comparing an electronic registration process relative to the current paper filing and cap selection process. DHS acknowledges that the $10 registration fee will reduce some of the estimated cost savings for unselected H-1B cap-subject petitioners as described in the H-1B registration final rule. As discussed in the Regulatory Review section, DHS does not believe that the proposed registration fee will significantly factor into the decision-making of potential H-1B petitioners, nor does DHS believe that the fee will be perceived as being cost-prohibitive by these potential H-1B petitioners. After the registration requirement is implemented and reviewed over the coming years, DHS will consider the costs associated with the system as required during biennial fee reviews and adjust the registration fee accordingly via notice-and-comment rulemaking.

When registration is required, all petitioners seeking to file an H-1B cap-subject petition, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption, must first electronically register with USCIS during a designated registration period. A separate registration must be submitted for each worker on whose behalf a petitioner seeks to file an H-1B cap-subject petition. Only those petitioners whose registrations are selected will be eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition during an associated filing period for the applicable fiscal year. By means of this rule, DHS will require payment of a $10 registration fee for each registration, which will be due and payable at the time of registration submission. A registration will not be considered as properly submitted until the fee is paid. 6 In the analysis accompanying the H-1B registration final rule, DHS estimated that 192,918 H-1B cap-subject registrations will be submitted annually based on 5-year historical average Form I-129 petition filings. 7 That estimate will form the baseline for the analysis of costs associated with the $10 registration fee. As DHS acknowledged in the H-1B registration final rule, the use of this historical average to form the baseline estimate does not factor in the possibility that the registration's lower barrier to entry could result in increasing the number of registrations that USCIS receives. 8 To account for this possibility, this analysis will present a range analysis of annual costs up through an escalator of 30 percent increase over the baseline estimate.

Table 1 presents the annual, undiscounted, aggregate costs associated with the $10 registration fee using a range of escalations over the baseline estimate of registrations.

USCIS is required to review the cost of its operations on a biennial basis and recommend fee adjustments as necessary. USCIS may adjust the filing fees for immigration benefits and services through notice-and-comment rulemaking. DHS used a 5-year period of analysis to account for a potential time lag of the fee review and the actual adjustment that occurs during the rulemaking cycle. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a 5-year period is a sufficient period for DHS to base the analysis of the estimated impact of the registration fee.

In addition to the $10 registration fee, USCIS projects there will be an additional 7-minute time burden associated with reading the instructions and completing the electronic fee payment. In the H-1B registration final rule, DHS monetized time burdens based on who is expected to submit the registration: A human resources (HR) specialist; an in-house lawyer; or an outsourced lawyer. 9 The relevant wage is currently $32.11  10 per hour for an HR specialist and $69.34  11 per hour for an in-house lawyer. DHS accounts for worker benefits when estimating the opportunity cost of time by calculating a benefits-to-wage multiplier using the Department of Labor, BLS report detailing the average employer costs for employee compensation for all civilian workers in major occupational groups and industries. DHS estimates that the benefits-to-wage multiplier is 1.46 and, therefore, is able to estimate the full opportunity cost per applicant, including employee wages and salaries and the full cost of benefits such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement. 12 DHS multiplied the average hourly U.S. wage rate for HR specialists and lawyers by 1.46 to account for the full cost of employee benefits and overhead, for a total of $46.88  13 per hour for an HR specialist and $101.24  14 per hour for an in-house lawyer. DHS recognizes that a firm may choose, but is not required, to outsource the preparation of these registrations and, therefore, has presented two wage rates for lawyers. To determine the full opportunity costs if a firm hired an outsourced lawyer, DHS multiplied the average hourly U.S. wage rate for lawyers by 2.5 for a total of $173.35  15 to approximate an hourly billing rate for an outsourced lawyer. 16 The monetized equivalent time burden for 7 minutes (0.12 hours) is $5.63, 17 $12.15, 18 and $20.80  19 for an HR specialist, in-house lawyer, and outsourced lawyer, respectively.

Based on a review of historical filings, USCIS determined that approximately 75 percent of H-1B cap-subject petitions are filed by an attorney or accredited representative. 20 This analysis will carry that finding forward to estimate the time burden costs for complying with the registration fee requirement. In other words, the analysis of time burden costs presented assumes that 25 percent of the registrations will be completed by an HR specialist or representative, and 75 percent of the registrations will be completed by an attorney, either in-house or outsourced. Table 2 presents the annual, undiscounted, time burden or opportunity costs associated with paying the registration fee electronically, assuming 7 minutes of time burden, over a range of estimated numbers of registrations and according to who submits the H-1B registration.

Pursuant to section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187, the Secretary of Homeland Security (the Secretary), in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate certain countries as Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries  1 if certain requirements are met. Those requirements include, without limitation: (1) A U.S. Government determination that the country meets the applicable statutory requirement with respect to nonimmigrant visitor visa refusals for nationals of the country; (2) an official certification that it issues machine-readable, electronic passports that comply with internationally accepted standards; (3) a U.S. Government determination that the country's designation would not negatively affect U.S. law enforcement and security interests; (4) an agreement with the United States to report, or make available through other designated means, to the U.S. Government information about the theft or loss of passports; (5) a U.S. Government determination that the government accepts for repatriation any citizen, former citizen, or national not later than three weeks after the issuance of a final executable order of removal; and (6) an agreement with the United States to share information regarding whether citizens or nationals of the country represent a threat to the security or welfare of the United States or its citizens.

The INA also sets forth requirements for continued eligibility and, where appropriate, probation and/or termination of program countries.

Prior to this final rule, the designated countries in the VWP were Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, 2 and the United Kingdom. 3 See 8 CFR 217.2(a).

Citizens and eligible nationals of VWP countries may apply for admission to the United States at U.S. ports of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for a period of ninety days or less for business or pleasure without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are otherwise eligible for admission under applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. To travel to the United States under the VWP, an alien must satisfy the following:

(1) Be seeking admission as a nonimmigrant visitor for business or pleasure for ninety days or less;

(2) be a national of a program country;

(3) present a machine-readable, electronic passport issued by a designated VWP participant country to the air or vessel carrier before departure;

(4) execute the required immigration forms;

(5) if arriving by air or sea, arrive on an authorized carrier;

(6) not represent a threat to the welfare, health, safety, or security of the United States;

(7) have not violated U.S. immigration law during any previous admission under the VWP;

(8) possess a round-trip ticket, unless exempted by statute or federal regulation;

(9) the identity of the alien has been checked to uncover any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to the United States, and no such ground has been found;

(10) certain aircraft operators, as provided by statute and regulation, must electronically transmit information about the alien passenger;

(11) has not been present at any time after March 1, 2011 in Iraq, Syria, or any other country so designated by statute and regulation;

(12) waive the right to review or appeal a decision regarding admissibility or to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal; and

(13) obtain an approved travel authorization via the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). For more information about the ESTA, please see 8 CFR 217.5 (regulation effective July 8, 2015), 80 FR 32267 (June 8, 2015), 75 FR 47701 (Aug. 9, 2010).

See sections 217(a) and 217(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)-(b); see also 8 CFR part 217.

The Department of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Department of State, has evaluated Poland for VWP designation to ensure that it meets the requirements set forth in section 217 of the INA, as amended by section 711 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-53. The Secretary has determined that Poland has satisfied the statutory requirements for initial VWP designation; therefore, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated Poland as a program country. 4

This final rule adds Poland to the list of countries authorized to participate in the VWP. Accordingly, beginning November 11, 2019, eligible citizens and nationals of Poland may apply for admission to the United States at U.S. ports of entry as nonimmigrant visitors for business or pleasure for a period of ninety days or less without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided that they are otherwise eligible for admission under applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The final rule merely lists a country that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated as a VWP eligible country in accordance with section 217(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(c). This amendment is a technical change to merely update the list of VWP countries. Therefore, notice and comment for this rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because the rule has no substantive impact, is technical in nature, and relates only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required.

This final rule is also excluded from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 as a foreign affairs function of the United States because it advances the President's foreign policy goals and directly involves relationships between the United States and its alien visitors. Accordingly, DHS is not required to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment before implementing the requirements under this final rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603(b)), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required “to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule.” Because this rule is being issued as a final rule, on the grounds set forth above, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the RFA.

DHS has considered the impact of this rule on small entities and has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The individual aliens to whom this rule applies are not small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Accordingly, there is no change expected in any process as a result of this rule that would have a direct effect, either positive or negative, on a small entity.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This amendment does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866.

The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, DHS has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

The Department of Homeland Security is modifying OMB Control Number 1651-0111, Arrival and Departure Record, to allow eligible Poland passport holders to use the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) to apply for authorization to travel under the VWP prior to departing for the United States. CBP uses the information to assist in determining if an applicant is eligible for travel under the VWP. The Department is requesting emergency processing of this change to 1651-0111 as the information is essential to the mission of the agency and is needed prior to the expiration of time periods established under the PRA. Because of the designation of Poland for participation in the VWP, the Department is requesting OMB approval of this information collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

The addition of Poland to the Visa Waiver Program will result in an estimated annual increase to information collection 1651-0111 of 300,000 responses and 75,000 burden hours. The total burden hours for ESTA, including Poland, is as follows:

Estimated annual reporting burden: 3,625,000 hours.

Estimated number of respondents: 14,500,000 respondents.

Estimated average annual burden per respondent: 15 minutes.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends part 217 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR part 217) as set forth below.

On June 16, 2017, FSIS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (82 FR 27625) to amend FSIS's poultry products inspection regulations to list the PRC as eligible to export to the United States poultry products from birds slaughtered in the PRC. FSIS proposed this action after the Agency conducted a documentary review of the PRC's laws, regulations, and poultry slaughter inspection system, as well as an in-country audit of the system, and determined that it is equivalent to the U.S. system established under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and its implementing regulations. This final rule is consistent with the provisions of the proposed rule.

The PRC is already eligible to export processed poultry products to the United States if the products are derived from poultry slaughtered in the United States or in other countries with a poultry slaughter inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. Under this final rule, the PRC is eligible to export to the United States poultry products derived from birds slaughtered in the PRC. The PRC may not export raw poultry at this time because of restrictions owing to animal disease risk put in place by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Regarding processed poultry, the PRC may only export Fully Cooked-Not Shelf Stable products, because FSIS has only assessed information and audited the government controls for the production of products under this processing category. 1 The PRC would need to submit additional information for FSIS to review, and would likely need to undergo an additional audit before FSIS would allow the PRC to export other processed poultry products to the United States.

As explained in the proposed rule, under the PPIA and implementing regulations, poultry and poultry products imported into the United States must be produced under standards for safety, wholesomeness, and labeling that are equivalent to those of the U.S. system (21 U.S.C. 466). Section 381.196 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible to export poultry and poultry products to the United States.

Paragraph 381.196(a) requires that the standards of a foreign country's poultry inspection system, its legal authority for the inspection system, and the regulations implementing the system must be equivalent to those of the United States. These requirements include: (1) Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection performed or supervised by a veterinarian; (2) national government controls over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) verification of slaughtering of poultry and processing of poultry products by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or misbranded; (4) separation of establishments certified to export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at certified establishments; (7) controls over condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements under the PPIA and its implementing regulations (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(ii)).

The country's inspection program must also impose requirements equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Organizational structure and staffing in certified establishments to ensure uniform enforcement of laws and regulations; (2) national government control and supervision over the official activities of employees or licensees; (3) qualified inspectors; (4) enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species verification, and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection requirements (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(i)).

In 2004, at the request of the PRC, FSIS conducted a document review of the PRC's poultry (slaughter and processing) inspection system, concluding that the PRC's laws, regulations, control programs, and procedures were equivalent to those of the United States. FSIS proceeded with an on-site audit to verify that the PRC's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ), which was the PRC's central competent authority (CCA) in charge of food inspection, had effectively implemented a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. 2 However, FSIS identified problems involving sanitation, slaughter, processing, residue controls, supervision, and enforcement. In 2005, FSIS conducted a follow-up on-site audit and concluded that the PRC had satisfactorily addressed the previous audit findings for poultry processing only.

In 2006, FSIS published a final rule in the Federal Register making the PRC eligible to export poultry products to the United States, but only from birds slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States or other countries eligible to export slaughtered poultry products to the United States (71 FR 20867, April 24, 2006). Shortly after the publication, Congress prohibited FSIS from allowing poultry products to be imported from the PRC (see Sec. 733 of Pub. L. 110-161). In 2009, Congress removed this prohibition.

In June 2010, FSIS experts traveled to the PRC to collect information related to legislation applicable to the country's poultry inspection system, including the PRC's 2009 Food Safety Law. In December 2010, FSIS conducted separate but concurrent on-site audits of the PRC's poultry slaughter and processing inspection systems. FSIS reviewed the effectiveness of the PRC's food safety program based on whether the following equivalence components were addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, resources, and enforcement: (1) Government Oversight ( e.g., Organization and Administration); (2) Government Statutory Authority and Food Safety and Other Consumer Protection Regulations ( e.g., Inspection System Operation, Product Standards and Labeling, and Humane Handling); (3) Government Sanitation; (4) Government HACCP Systems; (5) Government Chemical Residue Testing Programs; and (6) Government Microbiological Testing Programs.

The auditors concluded that the PRC was able to meet the principal requirements for the equivalence components of Government Sanitation and Government Chemical Residue Programs. However, FSIS identified systemic inadequacies in both the slaughter and processed poultry inspection systems regarding the other four equivalence components. For example, FSIS found that the CCA lacked a standardized method to assign inspection personnel to slaughter facilities and also utilized establishment-paid inspectors to conduct official inspection duties. The CCA responded by developing a comprehensive corrective action plan addressing the findings.

In March 2013, FSIS conducted follow-up on-site audits to verify whether the PRC had implemented the corrective actions proffered in response to the previous audit findings. Based on the audit findings, FSIS concluded that the PRC's processed poultry inspection system was equivalent to the U.S. system and announced that the PRC could export processed poultry products to the United States. However, FSIS also found that the CCA had not adequately addressed all of FSIS's concerns about its poultry slaughter inspection system. Specially, the CCA still lacked a standardized method to assign inspection personnel to slaughter facilities on the basis of objective measurements. The CCA responded to these concerns, stating that it would implement changes to its poultry slaughter inspection system.

In May 2015, FSIS conducted an on-site audit to verify whether the CCA adopted the necessary corrective measures to its poultry slaughter inspection system. Based on the audit, FSIS concluded that the PRC had satisfactorily addressed all issues of concern that FSIS had raised in its 2013 audit of the PRC poultry slaughter inspection system and had met the FSIS equivalence criteria for all six components.

On August 21, 2014, FSIS published the final rule Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection (79 FR 49566). The rule created regulatory changes that apply to all poultry slaughter establishments and established a new optional post-mortem inspection system, the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS). On August 11, 2016, the PRC sent a letter to FSIS outlining the changes that were made to the PRC's poultry inspection system to achieve equivalency with the new U.S. regulations. These included requirements that establishments have procedures to ensure that carcasses with visible fecal contamination do not enter the chiller and prerequisite programs to prevent contamination of carcasses and parts by enteric pathogens and visible fecal material. The PRC also stated in the letter that it had adopted the U.S. requirements for NPIS. On September 1, 2016, the PRC sent copies of its updated inspection manuals to FSIS. The letter and the relevant portions of the inspection manuals are available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/proposed-rules. FSIS reviewed the submitted letter and updated manuals and determined that the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent to the U.S. system in regard to the Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection requirements.

Consequently, on June 16, 2017, FSIS published a proposal to find that the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent to the United States' system and, therefore, to remove from the regulations the limitation that the products must originate from birds slaughtered under Federal inspection in the United States or in a country eligible to export slaughtered poultry products to the United States. For more detailed information on FSIS's evaluations of the PRC's poultry inspection system see the proposed rule (82 FR 27625) and for the full audit reports, go to: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

In November 2018, FSIS conducted an audit of PRC's poultry inspection system, reviewing the inspection and regulation by the PRC of both poultry processing and slaughter. FSIS identified no significant problems and the PRC poultry inspection system was again found to be equivalent. FSIS will publish the findings from this audit in the future.

After considering the comments received on the proposed rule, discussed below, FSIS concludes that the PRC's poultry inspection system is equivalent to the United States' inspection system for poultry and poultry products. Therefore, FSIS is amending its poultry products inspection regulations to permit imports from the PRC of poultry products, derived from birds slaughtered in the PRC (9 CFR 381.196(b)). Under FSIS's import regulations, the PRC must certify to FSIS that those establishments that wish to export poultry product to the United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)).

Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS regulations as eligible to export poultry products to the United States, the exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United States, including those of APHIS. These requirements include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of APHIS's regulations, which regulate the export of poultry products from foreign countries to the United States to control the spread of specific animal diseases.

Also, under this final rule, all poultry and poultry products exported to the United States from the PRC will be subject to reinspection by FSIS at United States ports of entry for, but not limited to, transportation damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. FSIS also will conduct other types of reinspection activities, such as sampling and testing product to detect any drug or chemical residues or pathogens that may render the product unsafe or any species or product composition violations that would render the product economically adulterated. Products that pass reinspection will be stamped with the official mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days will have to be returned to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to animal food (subject to approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), depending on the violation. The import reinspection activities can be found on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/port-of-entry-procedures.

Under current congressional appropriations, 3 poultry products permitted for importation under this final rule may not be used in the school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq. ), the Child and Adult Care Food Program under section 17 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1766), the Summer Food Service Program for Children under section 13 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1761), or the school breakfast program under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq. ). In addition, poultry products from birds slaughtered in the PRC will be eligible for importation into the United States only if they are from animals slaughtered on or after the effective date of this final rule.

Finally, within one year of the effective date of this final rule, FSIS will conduct an ongoing equivalence audit of the PRC's poultry inspection system. During the audit, FSIS auditors will verify that the PRC's CCA has implemented its food safety inspection system as described in the Self-Reporting Tool and supporting documentation. FSIS auditors will visit government offices, establishments, and laboratories to verify that the CCA has implemented its inspection system as documented and verify that the country's system of controls remains equivalent to the U.S. inspection system. FSIS will be conducting such audits for all newly equivalent countries within one year of the effective date of the final rules granting equivalence. This policy results from an Agency response to a September 2017 audit of FSIS equivalence processes by the USDA Office of Inspector General ( Evaluation of Food Safety and Inspection Service's Equivalency Assessments of Exporting Countries: Audit Report 24601-0002-21 ).

FSIS received 96 comments from trade associations representing meat and poultry processors, consumer interest groups, a foodborne illness research center, a large food-processing corporation, and individual consumers. Comments from the meat and poultry industry and two individual consumers supported the proposed rule. Comments from the consumer interest groups and most individual consumers opposed the proposal. The following is a brief summary of the relevant issues raised in the comments and FSIS's responses.

Comment: Two consumer interest groups and many individual consumers opposed the rule because of reported outbreaks of avian influenza in the PRC. A consumer interest group stated that even if cooking killed the avian influenza virus, consumers should not have to consume poultry from birds that were sick.

Response: To export poultry products to the United States, countries need to meet APHIS requirements for animal disease prevention and control. APHIS uses several methods to ensure that harmful animal diseases do not enter the United States. These include actively monitoring the animal disease status of foreign countries and maintaining lists of countries and regions considered to be free (or not free) of certain diseases. If an animal disease is found to exist in a country (or a region within a country) that exports meat, poultry, or egg products to the United States, APHIS requires specific processing steps to ensure that any product from that country or region will not cause the disease to be transmitted to the United States (see 9 CFR part 94).

In addition to these monitoring and processing provisions, APHIS requires imported meat, poultry, and egg products to have accompanying documentation regarding their origin, animal disease status, degree of processing, and intended use. At the U.S. border, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials verify that such documentation is accurate and that the products do not pose an animal disease transmission risk. These steps take place before FSIS reinspects imported product for food safety and other regulatory compliance. All meat and poultry products that APHIS restricts from entering the United States because of animal disease concerns will be refused entry by CBP.

As FSIS explained in the proposed rule, APHIS has classified China as a region where highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) exists. APHIS also does not currently list the PRC as a region free of Exotic Newcastle Disease. Therefore, before a shipment of poultry products may be presented for FSIS reinspection at the port of entry, it must have been processed in a manner sufficient to inactivate these viruses if they were present in the meat, in accordance with APHIS requirements at 9 CFR 94.6. FSIS reinspection of this imported poultry, in addition to the equivalent PRC inspection system, ensures that the product is otherwise safe, wholesome, and unadulterated.

Any poultry intended for export to the United States from certified establishments in the PRC will be subject to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection (see 9 CFR part 381, subparts J and K), and will be subject to reinspection at United States ports of entry for any conditions which may render the product adulterated or misbranded.

Comment: Individuals and consumer interest groups opposed to the rule questioned whether FSIS can ensure that poultry slaughtered in the PRC will be safe for consumption in the United States. Many individual commenters, three consumer interest groups, and a foodborne illness research center argued that the PRC cannot ensure that their poultry products are safe, because the PRC has produced and exported unsafe products in the past. These commenters were concerned that establishments in the PRC would use antibiotics and chemicals that are banned in the United States; poultry products would contain antibiotic resistant pathogens and harmful residues; similar standards of sanitation would not be maintained; or the products would not be properly labeled. Two consumer interest groups and a few individuals stated that on-site audits would not ensure that exporting establishments meet U.S. requirements. A consumer interest group questioned how the PRC will ensure that each province consistently enforces food safety requirements since the PRC is such a large country. Another such group was concerned that the PRC would certify establishments that do not meet U.S. requirements. One individual expressed concern that residues of a certain type of antibiotic would remain in products.

Response: FSIS has determined that this rule will not adversely affect human health. FSIS explained in a 2006 proposed rule, and again in 2013, its determination that the poultry processing system in the PRC is equivalent to the United States' system. Under FSIS's regulations, initial eligibility to export poultry products to the United States depends on the results of FSIS's documentary reviews and on-site audits of a foreign poultry inspection system. Once the country becomes eligible to ship product to the United States, it is required to continue to submit such documents and other information related to the foreign inspection system as FSIS may find necessary to determine a foreign country's eligibility (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(iii)).

During these reviews and audits, FSIS verifies that foreign inspection systems: Have in place a chemical residue control program that is organized by the national government; include random sampling of chemical residues, including veterinary drugs, identified by the exporting country or by FSIS as potential contaminants; and employ methods to deter recurrence of chemical residue violations. FSIS reviewed the PRC's chemical residue program and found that it met FSIS's equivalence criteria. In addition, once the country begins shipping product, the product is subject to reinspection, which includes periodic testing for residues.

Under the regulations, only those establishments that an official of the PRC's poultry inspection system certifies as fully complying with requirements equivalent to the provisions of the PPIA and the regulations issued thereunder will be eligible to export to the United States. As with other countries that FSIS has found equivalent, the PRC may certify any poultry establishment within its territory. The PRC will be required to renew these certifications annually (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). The PRC is required to ensure that certified establishments separate, by time or space, product destined for export to the United States from product intended for distribution domestically. All establishments certified by the PRC are subject to review by FSIS, which may terminate the eligibility of an establishment, if it does not comply with FSIS equivalence regulations or if current information about the establishment cannot be obtained (9 CFR 381.196(a)(3)). All certified establishments and records relevant to their certification and operation will be available for on-site and documentary audits by U.S. officials.

The regulations also require that a foreign inspection system, such as that of the PRC, maintain a program to ensure that the requirements equivalent to those in the United States are met. Specifically, the regulations require that a representative of the foreign inspection system periodically visit each establishment certified as complying with requirements equivalent to those of the PPIA and implementing regulations. The regulations also require that this representative prepare written reports documenting findings concerning compliance with requirements equivalent to those of the poultry inspection system in the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)(2)(iv)). FSIS will evaluate these reports during audits.

Furthermore, each consignment of poultry products exported to the United States from a foreign country must be accompanied by a foreign inspection certificate that certifies that the products: Are sound, healthful, wholesome, clean and otherwise fit for human food; are not adulterated and have not been treated with and do not contain any dye, chemical, preservative, or ingredient not permitted by FSIS's regulations; have been handled only in a sanitary manner in the foreign country; and are otherwise in compliance with requirements at least equal to those in the PPIA and FSIS's regulations (9 CFR 381.197). Thus, a representative of the Chinese government must certify that the product is not adulterated, does not contain harmful ingredients, and has undergone adequate cooking and processing, as necessary.

In addition to evaluating the PRC's eligibility and performing ongoing audits to ensure that products shipped to the United States are safe, wholesome, and properly labeled and packaged, every shipment of poultry products exported to the United States from the PRC will be subject to reinspection at points of entry for transportation damage, labeling, proper certification, general condition, and accurate count. Other types of inspection will be conducted regularly, including testing for pathogens, residues, and species.

Products that pass reinspection will be stamped with the official mark of inspection and allowed to enter U.S. commerce. If they do not meet U.S. requirements, they will be refused entry and must be re-exported, destroyed, or converted to animal food. Imported poultry products are to be treated as domestic product upon entry into the United States.

Comment: Many individual commenters stated that they preferred to purchase only domestically produced poultry products. Other individuals and two consumer interest groups expressed concern that poultry products from the PRC would not be subject to labeling requirements indicating the country of origin.

Response: All poultry product imports are required to bear on the container in which they are shipped and their immediate container the name of their country of origin, as well as the number assigned by the foreign meat inspection system to the establishment in which they were prepared (9 CFR 381.205-.206). When an imported product is further prepared or processed, the labeling requirements for the resultant product are the same as for domestic product. The addition of a country-of-origin labeling statement is not required by FSIS on further-processed product, although the Agency would approve product labels with the original country-of-origin statement if they are truthful and not misleading and meet all of FSIS's labeling requirements.

Comment: Several individuals expressed a general concern about on-farm practices in China regarding animal raising and feed. Other individuals believed that poultry from the PRC would not be treated humanely.

Response: FSIS is not authorized to mandate production practices on farms, either domestically or as a condition of permitting imports from foreign countries. FSIS regulates the safety of poultry products through its regulatory requirements that apply to slaughter and processing facilities, as well as products in commerce. These include HACCP, sanitation controls, ante- and post-mortem inspection by government inspectors, residue sampling, and Salmonella and Campylobacter performance standards, all of which are included in the evaluation process for foreign country equivalence.

Poultry are not subject to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901, et seq. ), which requires that humane methods be used for handling and slaughtering livestock. FSIS requires, however, that poultry be handled in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices, which means they should be treated humanely (see 70 FR 56624, September 28, 2005, Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter ). FSIS verified that the PRC implements good commercial practices equivalent to those required in domestic establishments.

Comment: A few individuals and a consumer interest group opposed to the rule questioned the timing of the publication of the proposed rule. These commenters argued that FSIS only determined that the PRC was equivalent to re-open U.S. trade of beef products with the PRC. A consumer interest group questioned whether a particular foreign establishment would be certified because it sponsored trips for foreign officials. Several commenters who supported the rule argued that FSIS conducted a rigorous and lengthy assessment of the PRC's poultry inspection system. These commenters also argued that the proposed rule was consistent with U.S. international trade obligations.

Response: FSIS made its equivalence determination based on sound science, and in accordance with international obligations of the United States. The PPIA and the World Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement provide that countries with equivalent inspection systems may export poultry products to the United States. As FSIS explained in the proposed rule, the Agency reviewed the PRC's laws, regulations, and poultry slaughter inspection system as implemented before determining that the PRC's poultry slaughter inspection system is equivalent to the United States' system.

Comment: Many individuals and a consumer interest group expressed support for U.S. domestic poultry production, with an emphasis on local, free-range, poultry. A few commenters were concerned that the PRC would export a large amount of poultry products, resulting in negative effects on domestic poultry producers. One individual asked which domestic industry segments were unlikely to be competitive due to lower labor costs in the PRC. However, comments from the poultry industry argued that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact on their business because the United States is the largest and most efficient poultry producer in the world and has a comparative advantage due to access to cheap, high-quality feed and birds. According to these comments, the United States is also a technological leader in poultry genetics and breeding, feed-compounding, and animal health practices.

Response: As explained in more detail in the economic impact analysis below, FSIS believes the domestic poultry industry will be competitive with poultry from the PRC. Recently, labor costs in the PRC have been rising, which together with high feed costs have pushed the wholesale price of chicken in the PRC to be higher than in the United States. FSIS also does not believe that this rule will adversely affect the U.S. poultry industry, because the volume of trade that results from this rule will likely be small and have little effect on supply and prices.

Comment: One consumer interest group questioned whether FSIS was interacting with the correct PRC government agency. Another such group asserted that FSIS should not find the PRC equivalent because it operated parallel systems for domestic poultry products and products intended for export.

Response: FSIS's equivalence regulations require that before permitting poultry product imports from a foreign country, it find that the country's poultry inspection system complies with requirements equivalent to the PPIA and its implementing regulations, with respect to establishments preparing products for export to the United States (9 CFR 381.196(a)). While FSIS was evaluating the PRC's food safety system for poultry exports, that system was administered by AQSIQ, the PRC's CCA at that time, in charge of food inspection and implementing a poultry inspection system equivalent to that of the United States. As noted above, the PRC's General Administration of Customs has taken over the functions of the prior CCA, but the reorganization did not result in substantive changes to the PRC's inspection system. The China Food and Drug Administration is responsible for food safety for domestically produced poultry products. As described above, FSIS has conducted a rigorous, comprehensive review of the Chinese food safety system and will continue to verify that the PRC maintains an equivalent inspection system through document review, systems audits, and reinspection of each shipment of poultry from the PRC.

Comment: Two consumer interest groups stated that an establishment in the PRC audited by FSIS was reported in the media as running at higher line speeds than those permitted under FSIS's poultry inspection system. One of these groups asserted that FSIS had only audited the way in which the PRC planned to run its inspection system, instead of observing the system in operation.

Response: As stated in the 2015 audit report, FSIS observed the audited establishments in operation, including the establishment referred to by these commenters. The audit included verification of adequate line speeds, as documented in FSIS's audit report. The PRC's system, as documented and observed, includes line speeds that comply with FSIS's requirements. After the final rule publishes, if the establishment mentioned in these comments is certified by the PRC, it must operate at line speeds in conformance with the inspection system FSIS reviewed and determined equivalent when producing product intended for export to the United States.

Comment: A consumer interest group questioned why a document on FSIS's website was not fully translated.

Response: The document the commenter referred was posted as supporting document to the proposed rule and is available here: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/proposed-rules. It relates to the PRC's compliance with FSIS's final rule, Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection (79 FR 49565, August 21, 2014). It is completely translated by AQSIQ, except for a short introductory letter, which does not affect the content.

Comment: Commenters also raised concerns regarding Chinese labor practices and working conditions, the use of a certain pesticide in the United States, greenhouse gasses produced by agricultural activities, and FSIS's previous determination that the PRC is eligible to export processed poultry to the United States if the products are derived from poultry slaughtered in the United States or in other countries eligible to slaughter and export poultry to the United States.

Response: These comments are either beyond the scope of this rulemaking or outside FSIS's authority. This rule is based on FSIS's determination that the PRC's poultry slaughter system is able to provide a level of protection equivalent to the United States' inspection system.

Executive Orders 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). Executive Order (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 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.

The costs of the final rule will accrue primarily to domestic poultry producers in the form of greater competition from the PRC. In the short run, the volume of trade stimulated by this final rule is likely to be small because the PRC only intends to certify five slaughter establishments to provide poultry to certified processing establishments to export fully-cooked poultry products to the United States. Data from the PRC show that these five slaughter establishments will supply poultry to five processing establishments that the PRC will certify as eligible to ship product to the U.S. (three of them intend to export cooked chicken quarter-legs and chicken breasts, one to export cooked duck legs and duck breasts, and one to export roasted boneless duck to the United States). 4 According to the data, the projected volume of exports to the United States will be about 324 million pounds per year for the next five years. 5 Given that the United States domestic annual production volume of ready-to-eat, fully-cooked poultry is about 12,325 million pounds, 6 the projected cooked poultry products from the PRC would only be about 2.6 percent of total United States production in the next five years. 7 The immediate impact on U.S. consumers and domestic processors is likely to be minor, as the low volume of trade is likely to have little effect on supply and prices.

In the long run, domestic producers will probably start to feel competitive pressure of competition if more PRC establishments become certified to export to the United States. However, FSIS believes the domestic poultry industry will be competitive with poultry from the PRC. Recently, labor costs in the PRC have been rising, 8 and the rising labor costs together with high feed costs have pushed the wholesale price of chicken in the PRC to be higher than the United States. 9 Comments from three poultry trade associations on the proposed rule also asserted that the United States is the largest and most efficient poultry producer in the world. According to the poultry trade associations, the United States has a comparative advantage in poultry production and marketing.

The PRC is the second largest poultry producing country in the world, trailing closely behind the United States. 10 If the PRC begins to export other poultry products (for example, if APHIS allows the PRC to export raw chicken products)  11 to the United States and more PRC establishments become certified to be eligible, consumers will likely benefit from more choices and more competitive prices in the marketplace; producers will likely benefit from efficiency gains as they have to become more efficient to be competitive. 12 The Agency did not quantify the value of these benefits because of the lack of predictability associated with the many factors that heavily influence trade patterns and volume. These factors include results of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards issues ( e.g. the avian influenza), exchange rates, 13 and domestic political and economic conditions.

This rule will likely increase trade between the United States and the PRC in poultry products. In the short run, however, the impact is likely to be small as the expected volume of trade stimulated by this rule is likely to be small (see Expected Costs section above).

The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in the United States. The expected trade volume will be small, with little or no effect on all U.S. establishments, regardless of size.

Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), this final rule facilitates regulatory cooperation with foreign governments. Therefore, this rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

No new paperwork requirements are associated with this proposed rule. Foreign countries wanting to export poultry and poultry products to the United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying that their inspection system provides standards equivalent to those of the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United States. This information collection was approved under OMB number 0583-0153. The rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purpose 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 citizens access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in Geneva, Switzerland, of this rule and will announce it online through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/interim-and-final-rules.

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).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR part 381 as follows:

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-22-02, Amendment 39-19082 (82 FR 51552, November 7, 2017), (“AD 2017-22-02”). AD 2017-22-02 applied to certain Ipeco pilot and co-pilot seats. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2019 (84 FR 34816). The NPRM was prompted by reports of tracklock spring failures occurring on affected seats, including those seats already modified by AD 2017-22-02. The NPRM proposed to retain all the requirements of AD 2017-22-02 and add additional seat P/Ns to the applicability. The NPRM also proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections of the affected tracklock springs and, depending on the findings, replacement of the tracklock springs with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0262, dated December 6, 2018, (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0260.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-08, Revision 00; SB Number 063-25-09, Revision 00; and SB Number 063-25-10, Revision 00; all dated May 31, 2016. The SBs provide instructions, differentiated by the part numbers of the affected pilot and co-pilot seats, for the modification and re-identification of these seats. The FAA also reviewed Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018. This SB provides instructions for inspection and replacement, if necessary, of affected tracklock springs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 110 pilot and co-pilot seats installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that seats installed on 34 ATR 42 airplanes and seats installed on 21 ATR 72 airplanes will require modification and inspection. The FAA revised the estimated number of affected seats in this cost estimate to include two affected seats per airplane.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all costs in our cost estimate.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

Discussion

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Gulfstream Model G-IV and Model GIV-X airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2019 (84 FR 12530). The FAA preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2018 (83 FR 37771). The NPRM proposed to require revising the ALS in the AMM to incorporate new inspections and life limits contained in Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008, Summary of Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness Limitations, Revision B, dated March 12, 2018. The NPRM was prompted by a revision to the ALS of the AMM based on fatigue and damage tolerance testing and updated analysis.

After the FAA issued the NPRM, Gulfstream updated the life limits in the ALS and issued Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008, Summary of Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness Limitations, Revision D, dated August 20, 2018. Revision D differs from Revision B in that the part number (P/N) for the rudder for Model GIV airplanes has been corrected to reflect P/N 1159CS30004, and new life limits for fuselage cockpit side post P/N 1159BM50025-5 and P/N 1159BM50025-6 have been added per Revision C. The SNPRM proposed to require the later revision of the service information. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

The FAA reviewed Gulfstream Document No. GIV-GER-0008, Summary of Changes to the GIV Series and GIV-X Series Airworthiness Limitations, Revision D, dated August 20, 2018. This document contains new and revised inspections and life limits pertaining to fatigue cracking of principal structural elements. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 711 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The extent of damage found during the inspection may vary from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need repairs or the cost of such repairs for each airplane.

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment 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 by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, December 5, 2019.

I. Background

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) administers regulations published in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 478, concerning commerce in firearms and ammunition. On April 1, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published in the Federal Register a final rule that made technical amendments in ATF regulations in the CFR (84 FR 12093). The technical changes made in this rule included the removal of expired regulations and regulations that are no longer applicable; the correction of section headings for accuracy; and a change in nomenclature resulting from the transfer of ATF to the Department of Justice from the Department of the Treasury pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Several sections were removed or amended because the statute that formed the basis of those regulations is no longer in effect. The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act (the Act), enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-322, Title XI (1994), established a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of “semiautomatic assault weapons,” as defined in the Act, as well as large capacity feeding devices. The Act expired on September 13, 2004, and the final rule was issued to remove or amend the regulatory provisions that had, in whole or in part, implemented that Act as they are no longer effective.

The April 2019 technical amendments inadvertently failed to remove all words related to the expired regulation that were included in 27 CFR 478.171. This final rule corrects the changes in the CFR made by the 2019 technical amendments by amending § 478.171 to remove “and manufactured after September 13, 1994, ” and “or were” in the last sentence of the paragraph and to add “was” before “exported” in the last sentence of the paragraph.

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Orders 12866, ” Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principle of Regulation; Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation; and Executive Order 13771, ” Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

This rule makes technical corrections to eliminate outdated and incorrect terminology and improve the clarity of the regulations, and makes no substantive changes. The Department has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). Accordingly, this final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Finally, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, it is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771. There are no costs associated with this regulation; however, it benefits the industry in that it removes outdated regulations and provides clarity for the regulated industry. Because there are no costs associated with this final rule, there are no monetized benefits. This rule is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” the Attorney General has determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.”

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), an agency may, for good cause, find the usual requirements of prior notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Currently, 27 CFR part 478 contains references to expired regulations and has obsolete, outdated, and incorrect terminology that may be confusing to the public. The rule makes technical corrections to improve the clarity and accuracy of the regulations and makes no substantive changes. For these reasons, the agency has determined that publishing a noticed of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment is unnecessary.

Further, the APA permits an agency to make this rule effective upon the date of publication because it is not a substantive rule. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Furthermore, the Department finds that there is good cause for the final rule to take effect upon publication, since the revisions made by this rule are minor, non-substantive, and technical, and there is no reason to delay these changes. Id.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, 604, and 605(b), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1525.

This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

Pursuant to the Congressonal Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part 478 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Parade of Lights in San Diego Bay, CA in Table 1, Item 5 of that section from 5 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on December 8, 2019 and December 15, 2019. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities and area for this event. During the enforcement periods and under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

In addition to this document in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard received the final details of the training on October 8, 2019. It is impracticable to go through the entire notice and comment rulemaking process because the Coast Guard must establish this temporary safety zone by November 15, 2019 and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters around the potentially hazardous on-water training and associated operations involving vessels firing blank rounds.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the Coast Guard PSU-312 training operations scheduled to occur on November 15, 2019 and November 16, 2019 will be a safety concern for anyone within the designated exercise area. The on-water training will involve vessels firing blank rounds. For this reason, this temporary safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters surrounding the potentially hazardous activity.

This rule establishes a safety zone around the Coast Guard PSU-312 training operations offshore of Pier 96 in San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA on November 15, 2019 from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., and on November 16, 2019 from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The safety zone will encompass the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°44.72′ N 122°22.35′ W, thence to 37°44.89′ N 122°22.12′ W, thence to 37°44.48′ N 122°21.73′ W, thence to 37°44.30′ N 122°22.05′ W, thence to 37°44.41′ N 122°22.06′ W (NAD 83), and thence to the point of beginning; or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

This regulation is needed to keep persons and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the training operations to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the water encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry to the area surrounding the potentially hazardous Coast Guard training operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by November 11, 2019 and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the power line work and compromise public safety.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with power line work, which could pose a risk to the operation and waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the work. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among working vessels and mariners traversing through the safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with power line pulls across the Ohio River will be a safety hazard for anyone within a two mile stretch of the Ohio River. The rule is needed to protect people from power line work which could pose a risk to the operation and waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the work. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among working vessels and mariners traversing through the safety zone.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone that will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. from November 11, 2019 through December 11, 2019. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Ohio River, from mile 103.0 to mile 105.0. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the power line pulls. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. Persons and vessels seeking entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at (412) 221-0807. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. Breaks in the power line work will occur during the enforcement periods, which will allow vessels to pass through the safety zone. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the schedule through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and location of the safety zone. This rule will impact a two mile stretch of the Ohio River from 7 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. daily from November 11, 2019 through December 11, 2019. Breaks in the power line work will occur during the enforcement periods, which will allow for vessels to pass through the safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the zones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting ten and a half hours on each day that will prohibit entry on a two mile stretch of the Ohio River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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

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

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL Listing? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? B. What documents are available for review at the EPA Headquarters docket? C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets? D. How do I access the documents? E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations L. Congressional Review Act I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”) and one of sites that are owned or operated by other federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.

• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.

• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.

A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions” (40 CFR 300.5).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.

Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site ( e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property ( e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken. . .to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction ( e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174024.

Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section II.D.

The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score, a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL listing of the site.

The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.

You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see ADDRESSES section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of this document).

This final rule adds the following two sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. Schroud Property is being added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 28.50 or above. Arsenic Mine is being added based on ATSDR health advisory criteria.

The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding two sites to the NPL in this final rule. The sites were proposed for addition to the NPL on June 3, 2109 (84 FR 25509).

The EPA received one unrelated comment on the Arsenic Mine site.

The EPA received comments from 21 comment submitters that expressed support for the proposed addition of the Schroud Property site. While all of the comments received were in support of placing the Schroud Property site on the NPL, some comments expressed additional concerns. These concerns include:

Regarding comments in support of NPL listing that recommend scoring additional HRS pathways, threats and contaminants ( i.e., the EAF dust) at the Schroud Property site, the HRS does not require that a site be evaluated for all possible migration and exposure pathways or all contaminants before the HRS evaluation is completed. Evaluation and scoring of these pathways in the HRS documentation record could only result in an increased HRS score and, thus, would not have any impact on the eligibility of the site for the NPL. Although the EPA did not score other pathways, this does not mean that there is no associated concern or that the EPA will not investigate other pathways in the future. The HRS is a screening model that uses limited resources to determine whether a site should be placed on the NPL for possible Superfund response. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards at the site more comprehensively. Through the RI process, the EPA will fully characterize the risks to human health and the environment from contamination at the site, determine what cleanup is needed, and select an appropriate remedy with input from the community.

Many sites on the NPL are located in environmental justice, minority and/or poor communities. Through the cleanup of these sites, the Superfund program has sought to ensure that residents do not bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from past industrial, governmental, and commercial operations, and that they have meaningful involvement in the decisions on how to clean up the site.

The EPA is working with the city of Chicago to increase security and control access to the site. In April 2019, the city placed twenty-seven, 5,000-pound barriers around the property at access points to limit and discourage trespassing on the property. The EPA will continue to work with the community and the city of Chicago throughout the later stages of the superfund process to restrict access to the site.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

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

Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 300, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month seasons, January through June, and July through December. For the July 1 through December 31, 2019, fishing season, the commercial quota is 483,658 lb (219,384 kg), gutted weight; 536,860 lb (243,516 kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(ii)(A)). As specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(iii), any unused portion of the commercial quota from the January through June 2019, fishing season will be added to the commercial quota for the July through December 2019, fishing season. The unused portion of the quota that was not harvested by the commercial sector during the January through June fishing season, totaled 25,645 lb (11,632 kg) gutted weight, 28,466 lb (12,912 kg), round weight, and was added to the July through December 2019 quota. This resulted in an adjusted commercial quota, for the July through December 2019 fishing season, of 509,303 lb (231,015 kg), gutted weight, 565,326 lb (256,428 kg), round weight.

Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight, 1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight, to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, when 75 percent of the fishing season commercial quota is reached or projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. Based on current landings information, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available adjusted commercial quota for the July through December 2019 fishing season for vermilion snapper will be reached by November 11, 2019. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight, 555 lb (252 kg), round weight, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on November 11, 2019. This reduced commercial trip limit will remain in effect until the start of the next commercial fishing season on January 1, 2020, or until the adjusted commercial quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first.

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

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limit has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest, because any delay in reducing the commercial trip limit could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource, since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and increase the probability that the commercial sector could exceed its quota.

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