The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0148R1, dated April 5, 2019 (“EASA AD 2018-0148R1”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2019 (84 FR 30052). The NPRM was prompted by reports of TRU beams found with evidence of thermally caused material degradation in the rearmost section of the TRU beam at certain latches. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection for heat damage of each left-hand and right-hand TRU beam. The NPRM also proposed to require, depending on the findings, inspections of the TRU beam latches, the TRU beam clevises, and the thrust reverser outer fixed structure rear area; corrective actions; and replacement of TRU beams.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address degradation of TRU beams, which could lead to disconnection of the TRU from the engine, causing possible damage to the engine adjacent structure and controls and possible damage to the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Patrick Imperatrice expressed support for the NPRM.

American Airlines identified several errors in the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0148R1, and requested correction of the errors through allowing certain substitutions. The commenter noted that the proposed AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2018-0148R1, which in turn references service information from Airbus, Rolls Royce, and Safran. The commenter stated that the applicable service information contains several errors when referring to part numbers, documents, and the order in which certain steps are to be done. The commenter added that Safran verified these errors. Specifically, the commenter requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow the following substitutions:

• The installation of NAS1149 series washers in lieu of AN960 washers.

• The installation of NAS6303U4 bolts in lieu of NAS6303U04 bolts.

• The use of NSA5050-4C nuts in lieu of NAS5050-4C nuts.

• The reference to “Airbus SRM 51-75” in lieu of “Rolls Royce SRM 54-02-04” for paint restoration.

• The reference to “CMM 78-30-20 Figure 39 Graphic 78-30-20-991-839-A01” in lieu of “CMM 78-30-20 Figure 38 Graphic 78-30-20-991-838-A01” for replacement of damaged right-hand thrust reverser latch covers and hardware.

• The allowance to de-energize the ground service network, as specified in aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) 24-42-00, after closing the fan cowl doors in lieu of de-energizing the ground service network before closing the fan cowl doors.

The FAA acknowledges the referenced errors and agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has added paragraphs (h)(3) through (8) to this AD to include exceptions allowing the substitutions requested by the commenter.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and 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 also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

EASA AD 2018-0148R1 describes procedures for a special detailed inspection for heat damage of each left-hand and right-hand TRU beam, detailed inspections of the TRU beam latches for bush migration and cracks or deformation, detailed inspections of the TRU beam clevises for cracks and deformation, ultrasonic inspections of the thrust reverser outer fixed structure rear area for delamination, replacement of TRU beams, and corrective actions. Corrective actions include restoring paint, repairing delaminated areas, and measuring latch pin hole fitting diameters near migrated bushes. This material 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 51 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

According to the manufacturer, some or all 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 known costs in our cost estimate.

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 transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight 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:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Aviointeriors S.p.A. (Aviointeriors) Centaurus passenger seats with a specific life vest pouch assembly installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2019 (84 FR 41664). The NPRM was prompted by reports of life vest pouches that were installed incorrectly on certain seats. The NPRM proposed to require inspection of the life vest pouch assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection, replacement of the life vest pouch assembly. 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 No. 2018-0264R1, dated April 4, 2019 (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-2019-0557.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. 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 final rule as proposed.

The FAA reviewed Aviointeriors Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, 2018, and Aviointeriors Optional Service Bulletin (OSB) No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated March 11, 2019. The MSB describes procedures for inspection and horizontal installation of the life vest pouch assembly. The OSB describes procedures for an alternative (vertical) inspection and installation of the life vest pouch assembly. 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 an unknown number of passenger seats installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777-200 and 777-300 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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 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:

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0042, dated February 27, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0042”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, certificated in any category.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-22-18, Amendment 39-17256 (77 FR 70366, November 26, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-18”). AD 2012-22-18 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2019 (84 FR 28431). The NPRM was prompted by additional reports of engine air inlet cowl collapse since AD 2012-22-18 was issued. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the three inner acoustic panels of both engine air inlet cowls to detect disbonding, and corrective actions if necessary, with a reduced initial compliance time and reduced repetitive inspection intervals. The NPRM also proposed an optional modification that would be terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The FAA is issuing this AD to address disbonding, which could result in detachment of the engine air inlet cowl from the engine, leading to ingestion of parts, which could cause failure of the engine, and possible injury to persons on the ground. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Patrick Imperatrice indicated his support for the NPRM.

American Airlines (AAL) requested that operators be allowed to use aerospace industry standard tap check tools for the inspection of the engine air inlet cowl acoustic panels instead of the tap check tools specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3, dated December 5, 2018 (“Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3”). The commenter stated that the tooling paragraph in Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3, unnecessarily restricts operators' choices of tap tools with respect to industry standard practices, and places an undue burden on operators with regards to maintaining compliance procedures. The commenter noted that the previous revision level of Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018 provided a more general description of the tap tool and did not prohibit the use of an aluminum tap tool. The commenter noted that it has successfully detected disbonding using a variety of standard industry tap tools made of corrosion resistant steel (CRES), mild steel, brass, and aluminum on similar nacelle component thin-skinned carbon fiber/honeycomb sandwich panels, with and without wire mesh on them, without any negative effects, such as galvanic corrosion. The commenter stated that it considers tools similar to or as described in aviation industry manuals, made from any of the typical listed materials, to have an equivalent level of safety and performance as the tool specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3. The commenter also advised that, although not a concern from its experience, any aluminum tool would be contacting the stainless steel wire mesh on the carbon fiber panel surface except for localized areas of missing wire mesh.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's observation that Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3, specifies that the tap tool can be purchased or manufactured, should be made of mild steel or brass rod, and that the use of an aluminum tap tool is prohibited.

However, the FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to revise this AD to allow operators to use any aviation industry standard tap check tool, including those made of aluminum, for the inspection of the engine air inlet cowl acoustic panels. The FAA received additional information from Bombardier stating that Bombardier performed numerous tests on acoustic panels using tap tools manufactured from various materials. Bombardier concluded that a better tonal response was received for both disbond and non-disbond areas when a heavier tap tool made from steel or brass material was used, which resulted in more reliable detection of panel disbond.

This AD refers to EASA AD 2019-0042 for a description of the procedures for repetitive inspections of the engine air inlet cowls having a certain part number, repair or replacement of any engine air inlet cowl that has disbond, and an optional modification that terminated the need for the repetitive inspections. In turn, EASA AD 2019-0042 refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 04, dated December 17, 2018 (“Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 04”), for information regarding the inspection procedures for the engine air inlet cowl. Paragraphs 3.C. and 3.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 04, are considered “required for compliance” (RC) and must be done to comply with the requirements of this AD.

Paragraph 3.C. of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3024, Revision 04, states that the tap test must be done using the procedures in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin No. RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 3, dated December 7, 2018 (“Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin No. RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 3”). Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin No. RB.211-71-AG419, Revision 3, refers to Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3, for the inspection procedures.

Operators may request to use tap tools other than those identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin RB211-NAC-71-018, Revision 3, by utilizing the alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) provision provided in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD and submitting sufficient data to substantiate that the alternative tools would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not revised this AD in regard to this issue.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule 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.

EASA AD 2019-0042 describes procedures for repetitive inspections of engine air inlet cowls having certain part numbers, repair or replacement of any engine air inlet cowl that has disbonding, and an optional modification that terminates the need for the repetitive inspections. This material 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 47 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2019 (84 FR 20054). The NPRM was prompted by a report that cracks were detected on FR 16 and FR 20 web holes and passenger door intercostal fitting holes at the door stop fitting locations. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive rototest inspections of the holes at the door stop fittings for any cracking, and corrective actions if necessary.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0289, dated December 21, 2018 (“EASA AD 2018-0289”) (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of FR 16 and FR 20 web holes and passenger door intercostal fitting holes at the door stop fitting locations. Such cracking could affect the structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0254.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Allegiant Air commented that the proposed AD states that no AD would be affected; however, it believes that AD 2018-25-02 would be affected by the proposed AD. Allegiant Air stated that paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2018-25-02 requires a revision to the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2—Damage Tolerant Airworthiness Limitation Items (DT-ALI), Variation 6.3, dated October 24, 2017. Allegiant Air commented that this variation includes ALI tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3, which EASA AD 2018-0289 indicated will be deleted from Airworthiness Limitation Section Part 2. Allegiant Air stated that if the NPRM becomes an AD, the proposed AD should be revised to show that it affects AD 2018-25-02, and it should also provide relief to the requirement to include these two ALI tasks in an operator's maintenance or inspection program. Allegiant Air further commented that EASA AD 2018-0289 states that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1330 is a terminating action for the inspections required by ALI task 531103, which EASA AD 2018-0289 indicates will be deleted.

The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD does not supersede or terminate AD 2018-25-02. However, ALI tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3, which were incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program as part of the revision required by AD 2018-25-02, are affected. This AD allows those tasks to be terminated as specified in the provisions of EASA 2018-0289.

• As specified in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2018-0289, the inspection requirements for ALI task 531103 are cancelled for an airplane if the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2018-0289 is done.

• As specified in paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289, the inspection requirements for ALI task 531103 are cancelled at repaired door stop locations if the optional terminating action specified in paragraphs (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289 is done.

• As specified in paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2018-0289, the inspection requirements for ALI task 531103 are cancelled if the applicable actions required by paragraphs (1) through (4) of EASA AD 2018-0289 are done.

The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the proposed AD and paragraphs (5) and (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289, dated December 21, 2018, be “retained in any FAA AD.” The commenter also requested that modification using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1330 be counted as a terminating action to any FAA AD, and if this is not possible, then the commenter requested that the FAA retain the same requirements of paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2018-0289.

The FAA infers that the commenter wants to ensure that the proposed requirements and provisions are carried over into the final rule. For clarification, paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) of EASA AD 2018-0289 are included in the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, which requires compliance with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0289. All provisions, including credit and terminating action specified in EASA AD 2018-0289 also apply to this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

United Airlines (UAL) requested that ALI task 531103-01-2 be carried over in the proposed AD with a compliance time of up to 120 days from the effective date of the AD or until the ALI is deleted, whichever occurs later. UAL commented that EASA AD 2018-0289 specifies that ALI tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3 will be deleted by Airbus at the next airworthiness limitations section revision opportunity; therefore, there is no reason the ALI task cannot be carried over because ALI task 531103-01-2 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1339 describe procedures for the same open hole rotating probe high frequency eddy current inspection. UAL stated that the ALI task and the service information have the same inspection threshold and intervals. UAL stated that this will allow operators' maintenance program and engineering departments adequate time to transition internal task cards and/or engineering orders from the ALI task to the service information instructions; transitioning internal documents immediately after publication of the proposed AD is not feasible.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. For clarification, EASA AD 2018-0289 is replacing the requirements imposed by ALI tasks 531103-01-2 and 531103-01-3. This AD, as specified in paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) of EASA AD 2018-0289, allows for the termination of the ALI tasks if the conditions stated in the applicable paragraph are met. Operators have the option to perform the repetitive inspections (no change to ALI tasks), or terminate the repetitive inspections by complying with the provisions specified in paragraphs (5), (6), or (7) of EASA AD 2018-0289. The FAA may issue separate rulemaking in the future that will require tasks that will replace the applicable existing ALI tasks. The FAA has not revised this AD in this regard.

UAL requested that the FAA allow repair drawing R53113118 to be used for repair instructions as an alternative to the corrective action specified in paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2018-0289.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The repair drawing will vary based on the configuration of the airplane and the extent of the findings during the inspection. However, any person may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule 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.

EASA AD 2018-0289 describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections of the holes at the door stop fittings for any cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. This material 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 1,229 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

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

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 transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight 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:

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-36, dated December 27, 2018 (“Canadian AD CF-2018-36”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A and 601-3R Variants) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0582.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A and 601-3R Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2019 (84 FR 39778). The NPRM was prompted by reports of the loss of all air data system information provided to the flightcrew, which was caused by icing at high altitudes. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with procedures for “Unreliable Airspeed” that stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the loss of all air data system information provided to the flightcrew. If not addressed, this condition may adversely affect continued safe flight and landing. See the MCAI for additional background information.

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

The FAA has revised the format the agency uses for referring to paragraph designations throughout this AD. This change is necessary to meet the Office of the Federal Register's drafting requirements. For example, where the FAA previously referred to paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, we now refer to paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD. This change does not affect the requirements of this AD.

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

Bombardier has issued the “Unreliable Airspeed Procedure,” specified in Unreliable Airspeed, in the Emergency Procedures section of the applicable AFM.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 AFM, RAG-600-101, Issue 2, Product Publication 600, Revision A111, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-1A11 (Winglets) AFM, RAG-600-101, Issue 2, Product Support Publication (PSP) 600-1, Revision 103, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1A, Revision 120, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1A-1, Revision 79, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1B, Revision 83, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-1B-1, Revision 81, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-1, Revision 103, dated August 31, 2018.

• Canadair Challenger CL-600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-1-1, Revision 92, dated August 31, 2018.

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

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 206 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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 transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight 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:

The FAA issued AD 2019-20-02, Amendment 39-19755 (84 FR 52754, October 3, 2019) (“AD 2019-20-02”), for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2019-20-02 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the left- and right-hand side outboard chords of frame fittings and failsafe straps at a certain station around two fasteners, and repair if any cracking is found. AD 2019-20-02 was prompted by reports of cracking in this area found on multiple Boeing Model 737-800 airplanes during a passenger-to-freighter conversion. The FAA issued AD 2019-20-02 to address this cracking, which could result in failure of a Principal Structural Element (PSE) to sustain limit load. This condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane, and result in loss of control of the airplane.

Since AD 2019-20-02 was issued, the FAA has reviewed inspection findings submitted as required by paragraph (h) of AD 2019-20-02. From these findings, four airplanes have been identified to have cracking outside the initial inspection area. Based on these findings, the FAA has determined that the inspection area must be expanded from the area around two fasteners to the area around eight fasteners on both the left- and right-hand sides (which includes the area around the two fasteners inspected as required by AD 2019-20-02) to adequately address the unsafe condition.

The FAA has taken all inspection findings into consideration in assessing the merits of the existing regulatory action. The findings support that the initial inspection thresholds are adequate to ensure fleet safety. All airplane structure has an initial period when fatigue cracking is not anticipated. Beyond this period, structural safety can be maintained with a damage-tolerant design and inspection program. The compliance times for the initial and repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (g) of AD 2019-20-02 were determined using standard damage tolerance principles. Residual strength is the load that damaged (cracked) structure can still carry without failing. Structure is damage-tolerant if damage that may occur can be detected and repaired before the residual strength capability falls below the minimum residual strength required under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.571.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Multi-Operator Message MOM-MOM-19-0623-01B, dated November 5, 2019. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for cracking of the left- and right-hand side outboard chords of the station (STA) 663.75 frame fittings and failsafe straps around eight fasteners adjacent to the stringer S-18A straps.

This AD also requires Boeing Multi-Operator Message MOM-MOM-19-0536-01B, dated September 30, 2019, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of October 3, 2019 (84 FR 52754, October 3, 2019).

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 is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the left- and right-hand side outboard chords of the STA 663.75 frame fittings and failsafe straps around eight fasteners adjacent to the stringer S-18A straps. This AD also requires repair of all cracking using a method approved by the FAA or The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA). Accomplishing the initial inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the inspections originally required by AD 2019-20-02 and retained in this AD. This AD also requires sending a report of all results of the initial inspections to Boeing.

The FAA considers this AD interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable the manufacturer to obtain better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the cracking, and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracking in the STA 663.75 frame fitting outboard chords and failsafe straps around eight fasteners adjacent to the stringer S-18A straps could result in failure of a PSE to sustain limit load. This condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane. The compliance time for the required action is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule.

Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-0866 and Product Identifier 2019-NM-174-AD at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,911 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed 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 transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D and Class E surface area airspace and establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the earth at Felts Field, Spokane, WA, to support IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (84 FR 29431; June 24, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0686 to modify Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace and establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Felts Field Airport, Spokane, WA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019 and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, and Class E surface area airspace at Felts Field Airport, Spokane, WA, by expanding an area that will extend to the Spokane International Airport Class C surface area on the southwest and expanded 1.2 miles on the northeast; and Establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4-mile radius of Felts Field Airport, Spokane, WA, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 53° bearing from the airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 6.5 miles from the airport, and within 3.0 miles each side of the 75° bearing from the point in space at (lat. 47°37′46″ N, long. 117°26′30″ W), extending 12.6 miles from the point in space coordinates. After a biennial review of the airspace, the FAA found modification of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and arriving under IFR operations at the airport.

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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

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

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

Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such entities, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be considered contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add twenty-two entities, under a total of thirty-two entries ( i.e., some of the entities are identified in more than one destination), to the Entity List. The twenty-two entities being added are located in Bahrain, France, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syria, Turkey, the U.A.E. and the U.K. The ERC made the decision to add each of the twenty-two entities described below under the standard set forth in § 744.11(b) of the EAR.

The ERC determined to add Dart Aviation to the Entity List under the destinations of France, Iran, Senegal and the U.K., because this entity has transshipped U.S.-origin items to sanctioned destinations and entities without the required authorizations.

The ERC determined to add Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC to the Entity List under the destinations of Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as this entity has been involved in the proliferation of unsafeguarded nuclear activities.

The ERC determined to add Marzoghi, Ltd. and Mohammed Marzoghi to the Entity List under the destination of Bahrain; to also add Mohammed Marzoghi under the destination of the U.A.E. and to add Abdullah Poor Nagar, Al Ras Gate General Trading, Bestway Line FZCO, and Khaled Al Taher under the destination of the U.A.E. as well; and to add Eslem Global Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret and Mehmet Yari under the destination of Turkey. The ERC determined that these eight entities knowingly divert U.S. origin items to Iran without authorization and are therefore unreliable recipients of U.S.-origin goods and technology.

The ERC determined to add to the Entity List EDO-ELEMED, Elemed Liban, Rahal Corporation for Technology and Medical Supplies, and Rahal Establishment under the destinations of Lebanon and Syria, and to add The Jordanian Lebanese Company for Laboratory Instruments S.A.L. under the destination of Jordan. The ERC determined that these five entities have been involved in providing material support to chemical and biological weapons activity in Syria.

The ERC determined to add Engineering Equipment (Private) Limited, Fabcon International, Muhandis Corporation, Paktech Engineers, and Rohtas Enterprise to the Entity List under the destination of Pakistan. The ERC determined these five entities have been involved in supporting unsafeguarded nuclear activities.

Finally, the ERC determined to add Techlink Communications and Techlinks, which were previously erroneously identified as aliases for Technology Links Pvt. Ltd., to the Entity List in individual entries under the destination of Pakistan. For more information on the original appearance of these entities as aliases on the Entity List, see 83 FR 44824 (September 4, 2018). As discussed further below, Technology Links Pvt. Ltd. is being removed from the Entity List pursuant to this rule.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b), the ERC determined that the conduct of the above-described twenty-two entities raises sufficient concerns that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these entities, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to these entities, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR. For the twenty-two entities added to the Entity List in this final rule, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of a presumption of denial. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters, and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following twenty-two entities, under a total of thirty-two entries, to the Entity List:

• Marzoghi, Ltd.; and

• Mohammed Marzoghi.

• Dart Aviation, including four aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP Trading Ltd., and Sari IEAS).

• Dart Aviation, including four aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP Trading Ltd., and Sari IEAS).

• The Jordanian Lebanese Company for Laboratory Instruments S.A.L.

• EDO-ELEMED, including two aliases (EDO ELEMED and EDO/ELEMED);

• Elemed Liban;

• Rahal Corporation for Technology and Medical Supplies; and

• Rahal Establishment.

• Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, including three aliases (Safe Technical Equipment Services LLC; Safe Technical; and SafeTech).

• Engineering Equipment (Private) Limited;

• Fabcon International;

• Muhandis Corporation;

• Paktech Engineers;

• Rohtas Enterprises;

• Techlink Communications; and

• Techlinks.

• Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, including three aliases (Safe Technical Equipment Services LLC; Safe Technical; and SafeTech).

• Dart Aviation, including four aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP Trading Ltd., and SARL IEAS).

• EDO-ELEMED, including two aliases (EDO ELEMED and EDO/ELEMED);

• Elemed Liban;

• Rahal Corporation for Technology and Medical Supplies; and

• Rahal Establishment.

• Eslem Global Pazarlama Sanayi ve Ticaret; and

• Mehmet Yari.

• Abdullah Poor Nagar;

• Al Ras Gate General Trading;

• Bestway Line FZCO;

• Khaled Al Taher;

• Mohammed Marzoghi; and

• Safe Technical Supply Co., LLC, including three aliases (Safe Technical Equipment Services LLC; Safe Technical; and SafeTech).

• Dart Aviation, including four aliases (Dart Aviation Technics, Dart Aviation Marlbrine S.A.R.L., MBP Trading Ltd., and Sari IEAS).

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry on the Entity List, under the destination of Pakistan. Specifically, this rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify the existing entry for Mushko Electronics Pvt. Ltd., which was added to the Entity List under the destination of Pakistan on March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12479). BIS is modifying the existing entry by changing the License Requirement from “All Items Subject to the EAR (See § 744.11 of the EAR)” to “Items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) only.” In addition, BIS is modifying an existing address for Mushko Electronics Pt. Ltd. to correct the spelling of “Boulevad” to “Boulevard.”

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to remove from the Entity List the following entities: Technology Links Pvt. Ltd., an entity located in Pakistan; All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd., an entity located in Singapore; and Eurotech DMCC, an entity located in the U.A.E. Technology Links Pvt. Ltd. was added to the Entity list on September 4, 2018 (83 FR 44824); All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd. was added to the Entity List on September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48534); and Eurotech DMCC was added to the Entity List on January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3580). The ERC decided to remove these three entities based upon their requests for removal and the information that BIS received from them as part of their removal requests pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR, and the subsequent review that the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in Supplement No. 5 to part 744.

For the reasons described above, this final rule implements the decision to remove the following three entities, under the destinations of Pakistan, Singapore and the U.A.E., respectively, from the Entity List:

• Technology Links Pvt. Ltd.

• All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd.

• Eurotech DMCC.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on November 13, 2019, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set forth in Section 1768 of ECRA, all delegations, rules, regulations, orders, determinations, licenses, or other forms of administrative action that have been made, issued, conducted, or allowed to become effective under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (previously, 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq. ) (as in effect prior to August 13, 2018 and as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. )) or the Export Administration Regulations, and are in effect as of August 13, 2018, shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, superseded, set aside, or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

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

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

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

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

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

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

Background

In 2014, NOAA issued a final rule re-establishing the process by which communities may submit nominations of areas of the marine and Great Lakes environment for NOAA to consider for designation as national marine sanctuaries (79 FR 33851). The final rule, which was promulgated at 15 CFR part 922, subpart B, describes the process for submitting nominations, known as the Sanctuary Nomination Process (SNP), describes the national significance criteria and management considerations that NOAA applies to evaluate nominations for inclusion in an inventory of areas that may be considered for future designation as national marine sanctuaries, and promulgates the regulations necessary for implementing the nomination process.

The preamble to the final rule establishing the SNP states that: “[i]f NOAA takes no designation action on a nomination in the inventory, the nomination will expire after five years from the time it is accepted to the inventory.” 79 FR 33851, 33855. In the preamble, NOAA also acknowledged that its implementation of the review process may evolve over time, in which case it would notify the public of any such process changes. See 79 FR 33851, 33855.

The intent behind the five-year expiration policy was to ensure that the inventory contains nominations that remain relevant based on original conditions. As the inventory of sanctuary nominations matures, some of the nominations may reach the five-year mark from the time they were accepted to the inventory without NOAA initiating the designation process. If a nomination remains responsive to the SNP criteria and considerations described in the final rule after five years, NOAA believes it may be appropriate to allow it to remain on the inventory for another five years.

To guide NOAA's determination of whether a nomination should remain on the inventory after five years, NOAA has identified a process by which the Agency will consider the continuing viability of nominations that are nearing the five-year expiration mark. With this document, NOAA is announcing that it intends to use the following process to evaluate a nomination as it approaches its five-year anniversary on the inventory:

1. NOAA will send a letter to the original nominating individual/party (“nominator”) at or around the four and a half-year mark of its time on the inventory to give the opportunity for the nominator to provide updates (such as more current nomination information as described in the 2014 final rule under “Step 1: Nomination Development” and “Step 2: Nomination Submission”, and/or new letters of support if available).

2. In addition to any response from the nominator, NOAA will update any relevant information on the nomination. Particular attention will be given to new public and agency/scientific information about the national significance of natural or cultural resources, as well as changes (increases or decreases) in the threats to the resources originally proposed for protection, and/or changes to the management frameworks in the area. In addition, NOAA will assess the level of community-based support for the nomination from a broad range of interests, and if that support has increased or decreased since the time of nomination. This information gathering on any or all of the national significance criteria and management considerations could take place through a public workshop or via a request by NOAA for written public comments.

3. NOAA will review the updated nomination against the SNP national significance criteria and management considerations to assess if the nomination is still accurate and relevant.

Following this public input and internal analysis, ONMS staff will provide the ONMS Director with a recommendation to maintain the nomination in the inventory, or remove it once the 5-year anniversary is reached. Whether removing or maintaining the nomination, NOAA would follow the same procedures for notifying the public as the ones followed when a nomination is submitted, including a letter to the nominator, a notice in the Federal Register , and posting information on “ nominate.noaa.gov”.

NOAA is not nominating or designating any new national marine sanctuaries with this action. Any designations resulting from the nomination process would be conducted by NOAA through a separate process, and within the public participation standards enacted by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the National Environmental Policy Act. NOAA will follow all standards and requirements identified in the NMSA and its implementing regulations when, in the future, it considers any nomination for designation.

This document contains final regulations in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations under section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by section 10905 of PPACA, and as further amended by section 1406 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care Act or ACA). The final regulations provide guidance on the annual fee imposed on covered entities engaged in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks, and affect persons engaged in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks.

On December 9, 2016, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-123829-16) in the Federal Register , 81 FR 89020, containing proposed regulations that would amend section 57.3(a)(2) of the Health Insurance Providers Fee regulations to provide that a covered entity (including a controlled group) reporting on a Form 8963 or corrected Form 8963 more than $25 million in net premiums written must electronically file the forms after December 31, 2017. Forms 8963 reporting $25 million or less in net premiums written are not required to be electronically filed. The proposed regulations also provided that if a Form 8963 or corrected Form 8963 is required to be filed electronically, any subsequent Form 8963 filed for the same fee year must also be filed electronically, even if the subsequently filed Form 8963 reports $25 million or less in net premiums written. In addition, the proposed regulations provided that a failure to electronically file would be treated as a failure to file for purposes of section 57.3(b).

No comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested or held. This Treasury Decision adopts the proposed regulations with no substantive change other than the applicability date. The rationale provided in the Explanation of Provisions section of the notice of proposed rulemaking applies equally to these final regulations. The electronic filing requirement will begin in the 2020 fee year because the fee will not be collected in 2019.

This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations. It is hereby certified that the electronic filing requirement would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). The rule is expected to affect primarily larger entities because the electronic filing requirement is only imposed if the filer must report more than $25 million in net premiums. Small entities are unlikely to report more than $25 million in net premiums, and the rule contains a specific exemption from the electronic reporting requirement for covered entities that report $25 million or less in net premiums written. Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of these regulations is David Bergman of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 57 is amended to read as follows:

In a document published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2019, VA published a proposed rule, which proposed to amend its regulations that govern scholarships to certain health care professionals. 84 FR 22990. VA provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on July 22, 2019. We received 7 comments on the proposed rule.

On June 6, 2018, section 304 of Public Law 115-182, the John S. McCain III, Daniel K. Akaka, and Samuel R. Johnson VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, or the VA MISSION Act of 2018, established a pilot program that would provide funding for medical education to 18 eligible veterans who enroll in covered medical schools. This is known as the Veterans Healing Veterans Medical Access and Scholarship Program (VHVMASP). For the VHVMASP, the VA MISSION Act of 2018 sets forth the eligibility criteria; the amount and types of available funding; established terms of an agreement to be entered into by the participant; as well as, the consequences for a breach in such agreement. This final rule establishes the regulations needed to carry out the VHVMASP. Immediately following title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 17.612, we are adding a new undesignated center heading titled “Veterans Healing Veterans Medical Access and Scholarship Program” and add new §§ 17.613 through 17.618.

One commenter was in support of the proposed rule. The commenter stated that they commend the proposition of a program that allows those who have fought so selflessly for our country the opportunity to better themselves through education and then turn around and give back to fellow veterans. The commenter believes that the rule will not only be immensely powerful for the veterans that are able to have their medical education funded, but also for the large number of veterans that they will be able to help. We make no changes based on this comment.

Multiple commenters recommended that the program include more universities. In particular, a commenter stated that they understand that the pilot program is in its infancy, but recommends that more universities be included and more scholarships be granted as the program grows and progresses. Another commenter similarly stated that there needs to be more schools where the VHVMASP is provided since there is not even one covered school in every state that has a VA medical facility. This same commenter also stated that this is an amazing idea and maybe some other types of schooling should be included in the VHVMASP, such as law school and drug and alcohol training for counseling, as this is a big area of issues for veterans. Another commenter also stated that the program should not be limited to these six schools, but should be allowed to be available at any accredited medical school, for example, Harvard, Wisconsin, or the University of California at San Francisco. VA understands that the VHVMASP is limited. Section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 limits the VHVMASP to the nine covered medical schools and to provide funding specifically for medical education. VA does not have the authority to expand the program to additional medical schools or to expand the program to degrees that do not lead to a medical education. We are not making any changes based on these comments.

Multiple commenters also raised concerns about the limitation that a veteran is only eligible if discharged within the past ten years. A commenter questioned why the proposed rule stated that the veterans need to have only been out of the military for no more than ten years. Another commenter suggested that VA should reconsider and drop the within ten-year requirement because this requirement serves veterans to no benefit except to limit and disqualify a number of veterans who would be interested in this program. This commenter stated that the program is already extremely limited because it is a pilot program and that there also seems to be no obvious benefit to VA except cutting out applicants for no good reason. The commenter added that if the limitation targeted older veterans less likely to complete the program it might be justifiable, but a requirement of having to have served within ten years does not target the age of the applicant. Also, an applicant could have been any age when retiring or being discharged from service. Lastly, the commenter stated that the limitation does not seem justified and should be reconsidered or VA should consider adding exceptions to this portion of the rule. Another commenter similarly stated that narrowing this program down to only veterans who have been out of the armed forces for a period of no less than ten years is a disservice to thousands of veterans. Several commenters stated that the current proposal allows a veteran out of the military for four years with a general discharge (or perhaps even a bad conduct discharge) to be eligible for this scholarship while a veteran with an honorable discharge who has been working as a nurse for ten years and wishes to take advantage of this program and go to medical school would not be eligible. The commenters indicated that at a minimum, there should be an exception to the ten-year rule for honorably discharged veterans or veterans should not be allowed to count time using the GI Bill or Vocational Rehabilitation against them ( i.e.: if a veteran has been out of the military for 12 years but five years of that was spent using GI Bill or Vocational Rehabilitation, for this program VA should allow the veteran to subtract those five years from the 12). A commenter added that given that this scholarship is limited to two students per school, there is no burden to removing the ten-year requirement, VA saves no money capping it out at ten-years. A commenter stated that the ten-year limitation should be extended to at least 15 years. The commenter indicated that someone who leaves the military at 24 could be engaged in graduate education at 39 and contribute to a supply of veteran physicians.

VA acknowledges that the VHVMASP has limitations, however, VA does not have the authority to amend the selection criteria for the VHVMASP. Section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 sets out the eligibility criteria for veterans to be eligible to receive the VHVMASP. The first criterion is that the veteran shall have been discharged from the Armed Forces not more than 10 years before the date of application for admission to a covered medical school. VA does not have the authority to amend this criterion. Also, section 211(b)(7) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2018 clarified that a veteran may not concurrently receive educational assistance under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, or 35 of title 38 United States Code or chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10 United States Code at the time the veteran would be receiving VHVMASP funding. VA would not count time using the GI Bill or Vocational Rehabilitation against funding received for the VHVMASP, but the veteran would not be able to receive VHVMASP funding if such veteran is concurrently receiving other types of educational assistance. We are not making any changes based on these comments.

Another commenter stated that the ten-year limit should be dropped. The commenter added that three years would help ease the process for the program so that the veteran doesn't have to wait ten years and so the program can function properly with the rotation of veterans in need. The ten-year limitation is the maximum allowable time after a veteran is discharged from service to be eligible to apply for the VHVMASP. The veteran does not have to wait ten years to apply for the program after they have left military service. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

A commenter stated that the proposed rule was not clear with respect to the period of obligated service. For instance, would a participating veteran work for VA upon graduation, would such employment be full time, will the veteran receive benefits, and good pay. VA disagrees that the rule is not clear regarding the period of obligated service. Section 304(d)(1)(E) of the VA MISSION Act of 2018, states that each eligible veteran who accepts funding for medical education under this section shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary that provides that the veteran agree to serve as a full-time clinical practice employee in the Veterans Health Administration for a period of four years, after completion of medical school and post-graduate training. We stated this requirement in proposed § 17.617(a)(4). We also stated in § 17.617(b)(1) that an eligible veteran's obligated service will begin on the date on which the eligible veteran begins full-time permanent employment with VA as a clinical practice employee. As a full-time permanent VA employee, the participant will receive pay as well as be entitled to any other benefit afforded to full-time clinical VA employees. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

Another commenter suggested that VA include the cost of the United States Medical Licensing Examination, Step 1 and Step 2 exams, as part of the covered costs for the participants of the VHVMASP. The commenter also recommended that VA clarify in the final rule that the monthly stipend will be adjusted for inflation. VA has various other scholarship programs and would like to administer the programs as consistently as possible. Under VA's current programs, such as the Employee Incentive Scholarship Program, exams and certifications are not authorized expenses. As an example, students pursuing a nursing degree do not get reimbursed to take the National Council Licensure Exam (NCLEC). Also, the current Health Professional Scholarship Program (HPS) program does not pay for licensures or boards for other disciplines. VA will pay a monthly stipend directly to VHVMASP participants. The payment will be made for each month a participant is enrolled in coursework, beginning with the first month of the school year. The stipend will be adjusted annually based on the approved Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

A commenter stated that in 2018, 351 American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) applicants selected “veteran” for military status on their AMCAS application, and 175 applicants selected “active duty.” The commenter urged VA to clarify whether the VHVMASP is only applicable to the entering class of 2020 or whether it will be extended in future years. The commenter added that given the VA's physician workforce shortages, they would support the extension of this program indefinitely and its expansion to additional medical schools. VA understands the commenter's concern, however, section 304(b)(3) of the VA MISSION Act 2018, as amended by section 211(b)(7) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2018, specified that the VHVMASP would only be for the entering class of 2020. In addition, VA has other scholarship programs that are available for individuals who are enrolled in education courses that lead to degrees in various health care professions, such as the HPSP, the Visual Impairment and Orientation and Mobility Professional Scholarship Program, and the Employee Incentive Scholarship Program. VA may award these other scholarships to veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for these other scholarship programs. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

A commenter was concerned that VA would not afford some flexibility for participants who fail to meet the terms of the acceptance agreement due to extenuating circumstances, such as life events, or other academic pursuits, that may require participants to take a leave of absence. This same commenter similarly requested that extenuating circumstances also be considered when VA recoups funds from participants who breach their agreement and must pay the amount owed within one year of such breach. Another commenter suggested that the requirement for repayment of any liability for failure to complete the program should be extended to at least five years rather than one year and should consider the possibility of a return to the educational track, i.e. someone might have to drop out for a year or two, but then be able to resume their medical education. VA takes into account a participant's extenuating circumstances when recouping funds. A participant may seek a waiver or suspension of the service or financial liability incurred under this program or agreement by written request to the Under Secretary for Health setting forth the basis, circumstances, and causes which support the requested action. We are clarifying the regulation text based on this comment by adding a new paragraph § 17.618(c) to state that the Under Secretary for Health, or designee, may waive or suspend any service or financial liability incurred by a participant whenever compliance by the participant is impossible, due to circumstances beyond the control of the participant, or whenever the Under Secretary for Health, or designee, concludes that a waiver or suspension of compliance is in the VA's best interest.

A commenter stated that the proposed rule outlines the terms of the agreement, which includes completing post-graduate training leading to eligibility for board certification in a physician specialty applicable to VA. The commenter asks VA to clarify the definition of a physician specialty applicable to the VA. VA currently has many vacancies for physicians. A physician specialty applicable to VA is one which is focused on the diagnosis and treatment of healthcare conditions potentially experienced by veterans. Participants of the VHVMASP would fill these much-needed vacancies as part of the participant's obligated service. This language is also found in section 304 (d)(1)(C) of the VA MISSION Act of 2018. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

A commenter indicated that the proposed rule states that eligible veterans must ensure the State licenses are obtained in a minimal amount of time following completion of residency, or fellowship, if the veteran is enrolled in a fellowship program approved by the VA. The commenter requests that VA clarify whether participants will be required to enter a VA residency program to complete their training and comply with VHVMASP agreements. A participant will not be required to enter a VA residency program because, in general, VA does not have its own residency programs. VA will rely on graduate medical education (GME) programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and sponsored by academic affiliates to meet the participant's residency requirement. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

We made minor technical edits to the numbering in § 17.614. The edits consist of adding numbering to the individual statements in the definition of acceptable level of academic standing. We have also renumbered the definition of covered medical school. No other edits to the content of these paragraphs was made.

We clarified the definition of VHVMASP by adding the public law number for the VA MISSION Act of 2018. The amended definition of VHVMASP is the Veterans Healing Veterans Medical Access and Scholarship Program authorized by section 304 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018, Public Law 115-182.

Based on the rationale set forth in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA is adopting the proposed rule with the edits described in this rulemaking.

The Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, will represent the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures would be authorized. All VA guidance would be read to conform with this final rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This final rule contains provisions constituting a new collection of information, at 38 CFR 17.617 and will be included under OMB Control #2900-0793 for approval and submitted under a separate PRA process as explained below. The provisions in this final rule, under 38 CFR 17.617, would require eligible veterans to sign and submit an agreement between VA and the eligible veteran who accepts funding for the VHVMASP. This provision would result in a new information collected burden under OMB control #2900-0793. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding and associated with this final rule, published on May 19, 2019 (84 FR 22990). In that NPRM, VA detailed the new information collection burden associated with the provisions under 38 CFR 17.617 in the PRA section of the preamble. However, the associated PRA package was not submitted to OMB for approval due to another VA NPRM also requiring a revised information collection under the same approved OMB Control # 2900-0793. Despite this discrepancy published in the NPRM and in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA submitted the new and revised information collection requests (ICRs) to OMB through a separate PRA process via ROCIS and sought public comment through a Federal Register Notice document (84 FR 42991). These separate ICRs are in the final review stage with OMB.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The provisions associated with this rulemaking are not processed by any other entities outside of VA. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking would be exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 through FYTD.

This final rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this final rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Pursuant to the Congressional 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).

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for this rule.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Pamela Powers, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on November 5, 2019, for publication.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we are amending 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

Applicability Dates: July 2, 2019, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 95 (MC2019-157 and CP2019-175); July 12, 2019, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2019-158 and CP2019-177); July 18, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 106 (MC2019-160 and CP2019-180); July 18, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 536 (MC2019-161 and CP2019-181); July 19, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 105 (MC2019-159 and CP2019-179); July 23, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 537 (MC2019-163 and CP2019-183); July 23, 2019, Priority Mail Express Contract 78 (MC2019-162 and CP2019-182); July 23, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 107 (MC2019-164 and CP2019-184); July 24, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 108 (MC2019-165 and CP2019-185); July 24, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 109 (MC2019-166 and CP2019-186); July 26, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 110 (MC2019-167 and CP2019-187); July 30, 2019, First-Class Package Service Contract 100 (MC2019-169 and CP2019-191); July 30, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 539 (MC2019-170 and CP2019-192); August 1, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 538 (MC2019-168 and CP2019-190); August 6, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 541 (MC2019-172 and CP2019-194); August 6, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 540 (MC2019-171 and CP2019-193); August 7, 2019, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 96 (MC2019-173 and CP2019-195); August 7, 2019, First-Class Package Service Contract 101 (MC2019-174 and CP2019-196); August 7, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 542 (MC2019-175 and CP2019-197); August 8, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 544 (MC2019-177 and CP2019-199); August 8, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 543 (MC2019-176 and CP2019-198); August 12, 2019, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 64 (MC2019-178 and CP2019-200); August 12, 2019, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 97 (MC2019-179 and CP2019-201); August 15, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 545 (MC2019-181 and CP2019-203); August 15, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 546 (MC2019-182 and CP2019-204); August 15, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 111 (MC2019-183 and CP2019-205); August 15, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 112 (MC2019-184 and CP2019-206); August 15, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 113 (MC2019-185 and CP2019-207); August 22, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 114 (MC2019-186 and CP2019-208); August 26, 2019, Parcel Select Contract 34 (MC2019-188 and CP2019-211); September 12, 2019, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 98 (MC2019-190 and CP2019-213); September 12, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 547 (MC2019-189 and CP2019-212); September 18, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 548 (MC2019-191 and CP2019-214); September 18, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 115 (MC2019-192 and CP2019-215); September 20, 2019, Market Test of Experimental Product—Plus One (MT2019-1); September 20, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 116 (MC2019-193 and CP2019-216); September 20, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 117 (MC2019-194 and CP2019-217); September 23, 2019, First-Class Package Service Contract 102 (MC2019-195 and CP2019-218); September 23, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 549 (MC2019-196 and CP2019-219); September 23, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 550 (MC2019-197 and CP2019-220); September 23, 2019, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 118 (MC2019-198 and CP2019-221); September 23, 2019, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 65 (MC2019-199 and CP2019-222); September 27, 2019, Priority Mail Contract 551 (MC2019-200 and CP2019-223); September 27, 2019, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 66 (MC2019-201 and CP2019-224).

This document identifies updates to the market dominant and the competitive product lists, which appear as 39 CFR appendix A to subpart A of part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR appendix B to subpart A of part 3020—Competitive Product List, respectively. Publication of the updated product lists in the Federal Register is addressed in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006.

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

Changes. The product lists are being updated by publishing replacements in their entirety of 39 CFR appendix A to subpart A of part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR appendix B to subpart A of part 3020—Competitive Product List. The following products are being added, removed, or moved within the product lists:

1. Market Test of Experimental Product—Plus One (MT2019-1) (Order No. 5239), added September 20, 2019.

1. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 95 (MC2019-157 and CP2019-175) (Order No. 5142), added July 2, 2019.

2. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2019-158 and CP2019-177) (Order No. 5150), added July 12, 2019.

3. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 106 (MC2019-160 and CP2019-180) (Order No. 5158), added July 18, 2019.

4. Priority Mail Contract 536 (MC2019-161 and CP2019-181) (Order No. 5159), added July 18, 2019.

5. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 105 (MC2019-159 and CP2019-179) (Order No. 5160), added July 19, 2019.

6. Priority Mail Contract 537 (MC2019-163 and CP2019-183) (Order No. 5161), added July 23, 2019.

7. Priority Mail Express Contract 78 (MC2019-162 and CP2019-182) (Order No. 5162), added July 23, 2019.

8. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 107 (MC2019-164 and CP2019-184) (Order No. 5163), added July 23, 2019.

9. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 108 (MC2019-165 and CP2019-185) (Order No. 5165), added July 24, 2019.

10. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 109 (MC2019-166 and CP2019-186) (Order No. 5167), added July 24, 2019.

11. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 110 (MC2019-167 and CP2019-187) (Order No. 5173), added July 26, 2019.

12. First-Class Package Service Contract 100 (MC2019-169 and CP2019-191) (Order No. 5174), added July 30, 2019.

13. Priority Mail Contract 539 (MC2019-170 and CP2019-192) (Order No. 5175), added July 30, 2019.

14. Priority Mail Contract 538 (MC2019-168 and CP2019-190) (Order No. 5177), added August 1, 2019.

15. Priority Mail Contract 541 (MC2019-172 and CP2019-194) (Order No. 5180), added August 6, 2019.

16. Priority Mail Contract 540 (MC2019-171 and CP2019-193) (Order No. 5181), added August 6, 2019.

17. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 96 (MC2019-173 and CP2019-195) (Order No. 5182), added August 7, 2019.

18. First-Class Package Service Contract 101 (MC2019-174 and CP2019-196) (Order No. 5183), added August 7, 2019.

19. Priority Mail Contract 542 (MC2019-175 and CP2019-197) (Order No. 5184), added August 7, 2019.

20. Priority Mail Contract 544 (MC2019-177 and CP2019-199) (Order No. 5186), added August 8, 2019.

21. Priority Mail Contract 543 (MC2019-176 and CP2019-198) (Order No. 5187), added August 8, 2019.

22. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 64 (MC2019-178 and CP2019-200) (Order No. 5191), added August 12, 2019.

23. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 97 (MC2019-179 and CP2019-201) (Order No. 5192), added August 12, 2019.

24. Priority Mail Contract 545 (MC2019-181 and CP2019-203) (Order No. 5194), added August 15, 2019.

25. Priority Mail Contract 546 (MC2019-182 and CP2019-204) (Order No. 5195), added August 15, 2019.

26. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 111 (MC2019-183 and CP2019-205) (Order No. 5197), added August 15, 2019.

27. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 112 (MC2019-184 and CP2019-206) (Order No. 5198), added August 15, 2019.

28. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 113 (MC2019-185 and CP2019-207) (Order No. 5199), added August 15, 2019.

29. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 114 (MC2019-186 and CP2019-208) (Order No. 5206), added August 22, 2019.

30. Parcel Select Contract 34 (MC2019-188 and CP2019-211) (Order No. 5210), added August 26, 2019.

31. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 98 (MC2019-190 and CP2019-213) (Order No. 5227), added September 12, 2019.

32. Priority Mail Contract 547 (MC2019-189 and CP2019-212) (Order No. 5228), added September 12, 2019.

33. Priority Mail Contract 548 (MC2019-191 and CP2019-214) (Order No. 5235), added September 18, 2019.

34. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 115 (MC2019-192 and CP2019-215) (Order No. 5236), added September 18, 2019.

35. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 116 (MC2019-193 and CP2019-216) (Order No. 5240), added September 20, 2019.

36. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 117 (MC2019-194 and CP2019-217) (Order No. 5241), added September 20, 2019.

37. First-Class Package Service Contract 102 (MC2019-195 and CP2019-218) (Order No. 5245), added September 23, 2019.

38. Priority Mail Contract 549 (MC2019-196 and CP2019-219) (Order No. 5246), added September 23, 2019.

39. Priority Mail Contract 550 (MC2019-197 and CP2019-220) (Order No. 5247), added September 23, 2019.

40. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 118 (MC2019-198 and CP2019-221) (Order No. 5248), added September 23, 2019.

41. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 65 (MC2019-199 and CP2019-222) (Order No. 5249), added September 23, 2019.

42. Priority Mail Contract 551 (MC2019-200 and CP2019-223) (Order No. 5255), added September 27, 2019.

43. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 66 (MC2019-201 and CP2019-224) (Order No. 5256), added September 27, 2019.

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

1. Parcel Select Contract 2 (MC2012-16 and CP2012-23) (Order No. 1349).

2. Priority Mail Contract 123 (MC2015-52 and CP2015-80) (Order No. 2535).

3. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 21 (MC2016-14 and CP2016-17) (Order No. 2822).

4. Priority Mail Contract 177 (MC2016-57 and CP2016-72) (Order No. 2984).

5. Priority Mail Contract 175 (MC2016-53 and CP2016-68) (Order No. 2991).

6. Priority Mail Contract 186 (MC2016-71 and CP2016-86) (Order No. 3001).

7. First-Class Package Service Contract 41 (MC2016-73 and CP2016-88) (Order No. 3002).

8. Parcel Select Contract 13 (MC2016-75 and CP2016-93) (Order No. 3023).

9. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 (MC2016-76 and CP2016-98) (Order No. 3067).

10. First-Class Package Service Contract 44 (MC2016-82 and CP2016-107) (Order No. 3120).

11. Priority Mail Contract 192 (MC2016-86 and CP2016-111) (Order No. 3140).

12. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 15 (MC2016-89 and CP2016-114) (Order No. 3147).

13. Priority Mail Contract 199 (MC2016-100 and CP2016-128) (Order No. 3188).

14. Priority Mail Contract 200 (MC2016-101 and CP2016-129) (Order No. 3194).

15. Priority Mail Express Contract 35 (MC2016-107 and CP2016-135) (Order No. 3201).

16. First-Class Package Service Contract 52 (MC2016-130 and CP2016-164) (Order No. 3289).

17. Priority Mail Contract 216 (MC2016-133 and CP2016-170) (Order No. 3340).

18. Priority Mail Contract 221 (MC2016-144 and CP2016-181) (Order No. 3350).

19. Priority Mail Contract 223 (MC2016-146 and CP2016-183) (Order No. 3354).

20. Priority Mail Contract 226 (MC2016-153 and CP2016-216) (Order No. 3399).

21. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 (MC2016-160 and CP2016-231) (Order No. 3417).

22. Priority Mail Contract 229 (MC2016-159 and CP2016-230) (Order No. 3418).

23. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 21 (MC2016-165 and CP2016-239) (Order No. 3437).

24. First-Class Package Service Contract 59 (MC2016-171 and CP2016-249) (Order No. 3453).

25. Priority Mail Express Contract 40 (MC2016-169 and CP2016-247) (Order No. 3454).

26. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 (MC2016-174 and CP2016-253) (Order No. 3465).

27. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 30 (MC2016-175 and CP2016-254) (Order No. 3466).

28. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 26 (MC2016-177 and CP2016-256) (Order No. 3476).

29. First-Class Package Service Contract 60 (MC2016-176 and CP2016-255) (Order No. 3477).

30. Priority Mail Contract 233 (MC2016-179 and CP2016-258) (Order No. 3478).

31. Priority Mail Express Contract 41 (MC2016-180 and CP2016-259) (Order No. 3479).

32. Priority Mail Contract 232 (MC2016-178 and CP2016-257) (Order No. 3481).

33. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 31 (MC2016-182 and CP2016-262) (Order No. 3483).

34. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 27 (MC2016-183 and CP2016-263) (Order No. 3485).

35. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 28 (MC2016-184 and CP2016-264) (Order No. 3486).

36. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 33 (MC2016-186 and CP2016-267) (Order No. 3503).

37. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 32 (MC2016-185 and CP2016-266) (Order No. 3504).

38. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 34 (MC2016-187 and CP2016-268) (Order No. 3508).

39. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 (MC2016-189 and CP2016-272) (Order No. 3514).

40. Priority Mail Contract 235 (MC2016-190 and CP2016-273) (Order No. 3515).

41. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 29 (MC2016-188 and CP2016-271) (Order No. 3516).

42. Priority Mail Contract 238 (MC2016-193 and CP2016-276) (Order No. 3522).

43. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 31 (MC2016-194 and CP2016-277) (Order No. 3523).

44. First-Class Package Service Contract 61 (MC2016-195 and CP2016-278) (Order No. 3524).

45. First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2016-198 and CP2016-282) (Order No. 3529).

46. Priority Mail Contract 239 (MC2016-199 and CP2016-283) (Order No. 3533).

47. First-Class Package Service Contract 62 (MC2016-197 and CP2016-281) (Order No. 3534).

48. Priority Mail Contract 256 (MC2017-17 and CP2017-36) (Order No. 3627).

49. Priority Mail Contract 262 (MC2017-29 and CP2017-54) (Order No. 3662).

50. Priority Mail Contract 275 (MC2017-52 and CP2017-78) (Order No. 3702).

51. Priority Mail Express Contract 45 (MC2017-92 and CP2017-126) (Order No. 3802).

52. First-Class Package Service Contract 74 (MC2017-96 and CP2017-136) (Order No. 3833).

53. Priority Mail Contract 300 (MC2017-101 and CP2017-148) (Order No. 3844).

54. Priority Mail Contract 306 (MC2017-111 and CP2017-159) (Order No. 3860).

55. Priority Mail Contract 324 (MC2017-139 and CP2017-198) (Order No. 3955).

56. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 49 (MC2017-147 and CP2017-206) (Order No. 3966).

57. Priority Mail Express Contract 49 (MC2017-149 and CP2017-210) (Order No. 3981).

58. Priority Mail Contract 345 (MC2017-180 and CP2017-281) (Order No. 4092).

59. First-Class Package Service Contract 80 (MC2017-194 and CP2017-295) (Order No. 4110).

60. Parcel Select Contract 23 (MC2017-211 and CP2017-319) (Order No. 4149).

61. First-Class Package Service Contract 83 (MC2018-1 and CP2018-1) (Order No. 4159).

62. Priority Mail Contract 379 (MC2018-36 and CP2018-66) (Order No. 4269).

63. Priority Mail Contract 387 (MC2018-52 and CP2018-83) (Order No. 4290).

64. First-Class Package Service Contract 88 (MC2018-60 and CP2018-100) (Order No. 4316).

65. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 66 (MC2018-62 and CP2018-102) (Order No. 4318).

66. Priority Mail Contract 393 (MC2018-64 and CP2018-104) (Order No. 4320).

67. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 58 (MC2018-88 and CP2018-130) (Order No. 4350).

68. Priority Mail Contract 412 (MC2018-107 and CP2018-149) (Order No. 4372).

69. Priority Mail Contract 420 (MC2018-118 and CP2018-160) (Order No. 4379).

70. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 60 (MC2018-114 and CP2018-156) (Order No. 4381).

71. Priority Mail Contract 419 (MC2018-117 and CP2018-159) (Order No. 4390).

72. Parcel Select Contract 30 (MC2018-122 and CP2018-165) (Order No. 4406).

73. Priority Mail Contract 426 (MC2018-134 and CP2018-190) (Order No. 4564).

74. Priority Mail Contract 429 (MC2018-141 and CP2018-202) (Order No. 4584).

75. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 34 (MC2018-147 and CP2018-211) (Order No. 4603).

76. Priority Mail Contract 435 (MC2018-157 and CP2018-226) (Order No. 4637).

77. Priority Mail Contract 436 (MC2018-159 and CP2018-229) (Order No. 4644).

78. Priority Mail Contract 443 (MC2018-168 and CP2018-240) (Order No. 4663).

79. Priority Mail Express Contract 63 (MC2018-181 and CP2018-255) (Order No. 4686).

80. Priority Mail Contract 449 (MC2018-182 and CP2018-256) (Order No. 4687).

81. Priority Mail Contract 454 (MC2018-195 and CP2018-273) (Order No. 4734).

82. Priority Mail Contract 460 (MC2018-204 and CP2018-284) (Order No. 4770).

83. Priority Mail Contract 467 (MC2019-2 and CP2019-2) (Order No. 4858).

84. Priority Mail Contract 477 (MC2019-20 and CP2019-20) (Order No. 4891).

85. Priority Mail Express Contract 66 (MC2019-24 and CP2019-25) (Order No. 4901).

86. Priority Mail Express Contract 67 (MC2019-25 and CP2019-26) (Order No. 4903).

87. Priority Mail Contract 482 (MC2019-29 and CP2019-30) (Order No. 4908).

88. Priority Mail Contract 484 (MC2019-31 and CP2019-32) (Order No. 4909).

89. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 76 (MC2019-34 and CP2019-35) (Order No. 4913).

90. Priority Mail Express Contract 68 (MC2019-32 and CP2019-33) (Order No. 4917).

91. Priority Mail Contract 493 (MC2019-44 and CP2019-47) (Order No. 4940).

92. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 49 (MC2019-72 and CP2019-77) (Order No. 4978).

93. Priority Mail Express Contract 72 (MC2019-112 and CP2019-121) (Order No. 5049).

Updated product list. The referenced changes to the product lists are incorporated into 39 CFR appendix A to subpart A of part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR appendix B to subpart A of part 3020—Competitive Product List.

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

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

On August 8, 2019 (84 FR 38898), the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to approve the February 9, 2018 submittal from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, commonly referred to as the good neighbor provision. Other specific requirements and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 9, 2019.

The EPA received one adverse comment from an anonymous commenter. This comment is included in the docket for this final action. The EPA has summarized the comment and provided a response below.

Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA should evaluate all sources of SO 2 emissions in Massachusetts located near the border of the SO 2 nonattainment area in New Hampshire, rather than focus our analysis on large SO 2 sources located farther from the nonattainment area in New Hampshire. The commenter expressed concern about the 100 tons per year (tpy) SO 2 emissions threshold by stating that the EPA arbitrarily picked 100 tpy as a threshold, and that smaller sources of annual emissions can violate a 1-hour standard. The commenter asserted that “EPA must perform modeling to affirmatively rule out any stationary source of SO 2 emissions don't contribute to the SO 2 non-attainment area in the neighboring state of New Hampshire,” not just those emitting over 100 tpy of SO 2.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that modeling must be performed to rule out significant contribution to SO 2 nonattainment in New Hampshire from any stationary source of SO 2 emissions and that the use of a 100 tpy threshold was inappropriate. The EPA continues to believe that a weight of evidence (WOE) approach is sufficient to determine if a state has satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, and there is no legal requirement in the CAA suggesting that dispersion modeling must be used to evaluate good neighbor SIPs.

Regarding the statement about modeling, EPA notes that it did not independently model any sources as part of its evaluation of Massachusetts's good neighbor SIP submission, including sources emitting more than 100 tpy of SO 2 within 50 km from the Massachusetts border. However, when reliable and relevant modeling information is available, the EPA may utilize this information to inform its determination of whether a state has satisfied the good neighbor provision. As further discussed in the NPRM, Massachusetts reviewed potential SO 2 impacts on the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area. New Hampshire submitted an attainment plan for the Central New Hampshire nonattainment area on January 31, 2017, which relied mainly on the emissions limits and other conditions established for the Merrimack Generating Station, and the EPA approved that plan on June 5, 2018. 1 New Hampshire's attainment plan and demonstration for the central New Hampshire nonattainment area relied on air dispersion modeling of the 1-hour critical emission value shown to be equivalent to the federally-enforceable 7-boiler operating day allowable emissions limit for the Merrimack Generating Station. This modeling analysis included the addition of monitored background SO 2 concentrations. These measured background concentrations account for potential contributions from all Massachusetts sources, not just those emitting greater than 100 tpy. The New Hampshire modeling analysis demonstrated that allowable emissions from Merrimack Generating Station, in addition to the background levels, will not cause a violation of the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The attainment plan did not require any reductions from Massachusetts sources, and relied solely on controls and limits at Merrimack Generating Station to address the nonattainment. On September 20, 2019, the EPA took final action to approve New Hampshire's maintenance plan, submitted to ensure the area will continue to maintain the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS, for the Central New Hampshire area. 2 This final action also formally redesignated the Central New Hampshire SO 2 Nonattainment Area to Attainment for the 2010 SO 2 NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA still concludes that sources in Massachusetts do not contribute significantly to SO 2 nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in the Central New Hampshire area.

The EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from Massachusetts to neighboring states. The EPA's analysis includes the following factors: (1) Ambient air quality data for active SO 2 monitors in Massachusetts or in a neighboring or downwind state within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (2) emissions information for SO 2 sources in Massachusetts emitting greater than 100 tpy and located within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (3) emissions information for SO 2 sources in neighboring or downwind states emitting more than 100 tpy and located within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, (4) available modeling and monitoring information for any area within 50 km of the Massachusetts border, including for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and (5) SO 2 emissions trends in Massachusetts and neighboring and downwind states.

Regarding the commenter's concern with the focus on individual facilities which emitted above 100 tpy (using the most recent year for which point source emission data was available, i.e., 2017); the EPA disagrees that this focus on such sources is arbitrary. The EPA noted in the NPRM to this final action that Massachusetts limited its analysis to sources emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO 2 . These emissions account for 96 percent of Massachusetts's statewide SO 2 emissions from point sources, and thus are appropriate to evaluate for purposes of determining whether there is any emissions activity within the state that is in violation of the good neighbor provision. The EPA independently assessed which sources emitting over 100 tpy could have the most potential impact on downwind and neighboring states. Based on the assessment contained in the NPRM, the EPA stated “we agree with Massachusetts's choice to limit its analysis in this way, because in the absence of special factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual factors, Massachusetts sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately be assumed to not be causing or contributing to SO 2 concentrations above the NAAQS. The EPA recognizes that in 2017 Ardagh Glass Inc. emitted 92 tpy SO 2 , with the next highest source (Wheelabrator Saugus Inc) emitting 54 tpy SO 2 . Ardagh Glass Inc. has permanently ceased operations as of September 26, 2018. Given these facts, the EPA finds Massachusetts's analysis of SO 2 sources above 100 tpy adequate for analysis of SO 2 transport impacts to neighboring and downwind states.”  3 The EPA continues to find this statement accurate.

The EPA notes that the commenter did not provide a technical analysis or additional information indicating that sources emitting 100 tpy or less within 50 km of the border may have downwind impacts that violate the good neighbor provision. For these reasons, the EPA finds that our analysis of the Massachusetts sources in the proposal, considered alongside other WOE factors described in that document, support the EPA's conclusion that Massachusetts has satisfied the good neighbor provision for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

The EPA is approving Massachusetts's February 9, 2018 interstate transport SIP for the 2010 SO 2 1-hour NAAQS as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP.

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 13, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action, please contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-engines/new-source-performance-standards-stationary-compression-ignition-internal-0. Following publication in the Federal Register , the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website.

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 13, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. That section of the CAA also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

On July 11, 2006, the EPA promulgated Standards of Performance for Stationary CI Internal Combustion Engines (71 FR 39154). These standards, known as new source performance standards (NSPS), implement section 111(b) of the CAA. The standards apply to new stationary sources of emissions, i.e., sources whose construction, reconstruction, or modification begins after a standard for those sources is proposed. The NSPS for Stationary CI Engines established limits on emissions of PM, nitrogen oxides (NO X ), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The emission standards for these stationary CI engines are generally modeled after the EPA's standards for nonroad CI engines (including standards for land-based nonroad CI engines and marine CI engines), which are types of mobile engines regulated under 40 CFR parts 89, 94, 1039, 1042, and 1068. In general, the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines, like the nonroad engine standards, are phased in over several years and have Tiers with increasing levels of stringency, with Tier 4 as the most stringent level. The engine model year in which the Tiers take effect varies for different size ranges of engines. The Tier 4 final standards for both new stationary non-emergency CI engines and nonroad CI engines generally began with either the 2014 or 2015 model year. The NSPS for Stationary CI Engines are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII.

In 2011, the EPA finalized revisions to the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines (the “2011 Amendments”) that amended the standards for engines located in remote areas of Alaska (76 FR 37954, June 28, 2011). As discussed in the 2011 rulemaking, the remote communities in Alaska rely almost exclusively on diesel engines for electricity and heat, and these engines need to be in working condition, particularly in the winter. These communities are scattered over long distances in remote areas and are not connected to population centers by road and/or power grid. Most of these communities are located in the most severe arctic environments in the United States. The 2011 Amendments allowed owners and operators of stationary CI engines located in remote areas of Alaska to use engines certified to marine CI engine standards, rather than land-based nonroad engine standards. The remote communities prefer to use marine CI engines because their design facilitates the use of heat recovery systems to provide heat to community facilities. The 2011 Amendments also removed the requirements to meet Tier 4 emission standards for NO X , CO, and NMHC that would necessitate the use of selective catalytic reduction aftertreatment devices in light of issues associated with supply, storage, and use of the necessary chemical reductant (usually urea) in remote Alaska. 1 For PM, the 2011 Amendments specified that stationary CI engines located in remote areas of Alaska would not have to meet emission standards that would necessitate the use of aftertreatment devices until the 2014 model year. The aftertreatment technology that was expected to be used to meet the PM standards is a diesel particulate filter (DPF). The EPA expected that providing additional time to gain experience with use of DPFs would alleviate some of the concerns associated with feasibility and costs of installing and operating DPFs in remote villages.

In a letter to the EPA Administrator dated December 20, 2017, Governor Bill Walker of Alaska requested that the EPA rescind the PM emission standards based on aftertreatment for 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska. The letter stated that it is difficult to operate and maintain PM aftertreatment controls on stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska because of cost, complexity, and unreliability. According to the letter, utilities in remote areas have been installing used, remanufactured, and rebuilt pre-2014 model year engines in the remote areas to avoid the requirement to use PM aftertreatment, instead of installing new engines that meet the Tier 3 marine CI engine standards. The EPA's expectation that experience with use of DPFs would alleviate feasibility and cost concerns was not realized and the requirement that 2014 model year and later engines use DPFs had, in fact, resulted in use of older engines. The letter indicated that new engines certified to the Tier 3 marine CI engine standards are notably cleaner than the non-certified engines currently in use in remote areas of Alaska, due to advances in diesel engine electronic fuel injection and electronic governors.

After receiving the letter from Governor Walker, the EPA contacted the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to obtain more information about the issues described in the letter. In particular, the EPA asked for information regarding the state's concerns about the cost, complexity, and reliability of DPFs, as expressed in Governor Walker's letter. The EPA also asked for information on the number of stationary CI engines that are installed in remote areas of Alaska each year and whether any stationary CI engines with DPFs were currently operating in the remote areas. The AEA indicated that owners and operators of engines in rural communities have been delaying replacement of older engines because of the cost and concerns about having to install new engines with DPFs. As stated in Governor Walker's letter, the communities are using rebuilt older engines rather than installing new Tier 3 marine CI engines that would be lower-emitting and more efficient.

As noted previously, the communities in remote areas of Alaska are not accessible by the FAHS and/or not connected to the statewide electrical grid referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Grid. They are isolated, and most are located in the most severe arctic environments in the United States. It is critical for the engines in these communities to remain in working order because they are used for electricity and heating. Information provided by the AEA and engine dealers indicates that the costs for engine and control device maintenance and repair are much higher than for engines located elsewhere in the United States due to the remote location and severe arctic climate. Technicians must travel to the remote areas for service and repairs, and travel costs for technicians and shipping costs for parts are much higher than in other areas. Information provided by the AEA indicated that travel costs can include chartering aircraft and can be approximately $3,000-$4,000 per trip, in addition to daily labor costs. 2 According to the information provided by AEA, a typical DPF service interval is 2,000 hours of operation, so approximately two service trips per year will be needed. 3 The travel time can range from 25 to 99 percent of the total labor invested in a job. 4 In addition to increased maintenance costs, a control device vendor indicated that costs for DPF installation on an engine in remote areas of Alaska can be more than double the costs for an engine in Texas. 5 The remote communities also have a shortage of operators who are trained for the DPF equipment. Typically, the filter element must be periodically removed, and the accumulated ash must be cleaned from the filter and captured. The AEA indicates that few communities have the technical capacity to perform the necessary cleaning procedures for DPFs. Technicians would have to travel to the communities to perform DPF maintenance, resulting in additional DPF maintenance costs from more frequent travel.

According to the AEA, experience with the use of DPFs in remote areas of Alaska is very limited. The AEA was aware of only one remote community that had installed DPFs on two engines in a power plant. The DPFs were installed in April 2018, so there has not been experience with the long-term operation of the engines and DPFs. The AEA noted that, rather than having the emission controls integrated with the certified engine, as is typical for Tier 4 CI engines, the remote communities will have to purchase Tier 3 marine CI engines and equip them with DPFs that may come from third parties. The DPFs would not be integrated into the engine's computer system, which may increase the likelihood of problems occuring that could cause the engine to shut down. As stated previously, the engines are generally used for heating in the villages, so unexpected engine shutdowns could cause life safety issues. Providers of engines and emission controls in Alaska noted that they have experienced operational issues with Tier 4 nonroad and stationary CI engines with DPFs in other areas of Alaska, even when the controls were integrated with the engine by the original equipment manufacturer. For example, one provider noted that he serviced two Tier 4 stationary CI engines that required numerous service calls and the addition of a parasitic load bank to maintain exhaust temperatures high enough for DPF regeneration, which increased fuel consumption and operating costs. 6 Another provider stated that it sold a number of Tier 4 nonroad CI engines equipped with DPFs that met extensive factory tests for reliability and durability, but experienced numerous problems with regeneration of the DPF once they were in-use by operators. 7

After considering all of the information provided, including information provided on the lack of experience with and higher costs associated with the use of DPFs on engines in remote areas of Alaska, the potential for operational issues, and emission reductions expected if the disincentive to replacing old engines is eliminated, the EPA has determined that the use of DPFs is not adequately demonstrated in remote areas of Alaska. On July 5, 2019, the EPA issued a direct final rule (84 FR 32084) and a parallel proposed rule (84 FR 32114) to revise the provision in 40 CFR 60.4216 for 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska. After considering the public comments received, the EPA is finalizing the amendment that was proposed. The EPA is amending the provision in 40 CFR 60.4216 to specify that 2014 model year and later stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska must be certified to Tier 3 PM standards. The EPA has determined that the Tier 3 PM standards reflect the best system of emission reduction (BSER) that has been adequately demonstrated. The Tier 3 PM standards will limit emissions of PM to levels significantly below those of the older uncertified engines currently in use in many of the remote communities.

This final action revising the NSPS for Stationary CI Engines also satisfies EPA's obligation under the recently enacted Alaska Remote Generator Reliability and Protection Act, Public Law 116-62 (October 4, 2019), to remove the requirement in 40 CFR 60.4216(c) that stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska meet the Tier 4 PM standard and replace it with a requirement that those engines meet the Tier 3 PM standard.

This section presents a summary of the public comments received on the proposed amendments and the responses developed. The EPA received two public comments on the proposed rule. The comments can be obtained online from the Federal Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov/.

Comment: One commenter stated that there was no need to relax air quality standards and no need for diesel generation anywhere in Alaska. According to the commenter, there are opportunities for generation using hydropower in combination with transmission, and the commenter has a low-head hydroelectric generation design. The commenter indicated that a demonstration site has been operating in Ontario since 1988.

Response: The commenter did not provide any support for the assertion that replacing diesel generation with hydropower generation in remote areas of Alaska would be feasible on either a technical or economic basis and could provide continuous power for the remote areas. The commenter did not provide information to demonstrate that the communities in remote areas of Alaska are near potential sources of hydropower or that transmission to such communities from any potential sources of hydropower would be feasible. The commenter conceded that some transmission would be required, but did not provide any information regarding the cost or feasibility of installing the transmission infrastructure from a theoretical source of hydropower to a community in remote Alaska. In addition, as noted in the 2011 Amendments, heat recovery systems are used with diesel engines in remote Alaskan communities to provide heat to community facilities and schools. The commenter did not provide information to show how that heat would be generated if the diesel engines are replaced by hydropower generation. Further, the commenter does not explain how the potential for hydroelectric power in remote Alaska is relevant to the EPA's determination that Tier 3 CI engines are the BSER that has been adequately demonstrated. In doing the analysis of the BSER for new stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska, we considered adequately demonstrated controls that can be applied to the source, not complete replacement of the source with a different means of generating power and heat.

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should not repeal the DPF requirements for remote areas of Alaska. The commenter recommended that the EPA provide the remote areas of Alaska with an extension to allow further time for those areas to gain experience with DPFs and provide training to people in the communities. The commenter indicated that the EPA should formally designate the remote areas on a map or in a list so that communities know what requirements are necessary. The commenter recommended that the EPA use the grant process specified in section 105 of the CAA to provide Alaska with funding for pilot programs to help communities gain experience in installing and operating DPFs and to allow them to install DPFs if the costs are too high.

The commenter disagreed that Tier 4 CI engines will require greater costs due to service and repair trips to remote locations. According to the commenter, any engine, including a Tier 4 CI engine, will require the same costs for trips for maintenance, service, and repairs. Regarding concerns over proper disposal of DPF ash and used filters, the commenter said that the engines without DPFs will emit the hazardous metallics into the atmosphere, and the EPA should compare the health consequences of these emissions with the benefits of capturing and properly disposing of the ash and the filter. The commenter stated that the EPA should promote innovation and environmental and health protection for remote areas of Alaska, which are typically home to lower income individuals and minorities according to the commenter.

Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA should provide an extension to provide more time for remote communities to gain experience with the use of DPF, the EPA already provided an extension for that purpose in the 2011 rulemaking, and as explained above, the EPA's expectation that experience with the use of DPFs would alleviate feasibility and cost concerns was not realized. Instead, the requirement that model year 2014 and later engines use DPFs has, in fact, resulted in the use of older engines. Further, in light of the information the EPA received from Governor Walker, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the AEA, as explained above, the EPA has determined that Tier 3 CI engines are the BSER and does not believe it is appropriate to retain a requirement that would necessitate the use of a DPF even if additional time is provided to meet that requirement. If more experience is gained with the use of DPFs in remote areas of Alaska, the EPA will consider that information when it next reviews the standards under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA.

Regarding the comment that the EPA should formally designate the areas that are remote on a map or list them somewhere so that communities know what requirements are necessary, the criteria for qualifying as a remote area of Alaska in the regulation is not always based solely on geographical location. In some cases, the criteria include other factors such as the generating capacity of the source, so a map would not be sufficient for determining applicability. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the owner or operator of stationary CI engines subject to the regulation to determine applicability for specific engines.

In response to the comment that the EPA should use a grant process to help communities gain experience with implementing the Tier 4 standards, although the EPA supports the idea of communities becoming proficient in operating and maintaining DPFs, the potential availability of grants does not change our determination that the use of DPFs is not currently BSER in remote areas of Alaska.

Information on the higher costs in remote areas of Alaska for engine and control device maintenance and repair provided by engine and catalyst dealers is included in the docket for this rulemaking and summarized earlier in this preamble. The commenter asserted that this information was false and that the cost of traveling to the engine location for service and repairs will be the same for any engine. It is true that the cost of engine technician travel per trip would be the same regardless of the type of engine. However, there would likely be increased frequency of travel associated with engines equipped with DPFs to allow engine technicians to perform the maintenance required for the DPFs, since the communities reportedly do not have the capability of performing the maintenance on their own. Therefore, the overall maintenance costs could be higher than for an engine not equipped with a DPF.

Regarding the comment concerning the health consequences of air emissions and the benefits of capturing and properly disposing of the ash collected by the DPF, the EPA has considered the health impacts associated with this final action. As stated previously in this preamble, utilities in the remote areas have been installing used, remanufactured, and rebuilt pre-model year 2014 engines, instead of installing new engines that meet the Tier 3 CI engine standards. According to the AEA, if these amendments are not finalized, higher emitting engines will likely continue to operate in the remote communities. Replacing the higher emitting engines with engines meeting the Tier 3 CI engine standards and that use ultra low sulfur diesel fuel will result in health and environmental protections for the remote communities.

A detailed discussion of the impacts of these amendments can be found in the Impacts of the Amendments to the NSPS for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines memorandum, which is available in the docket for this action. That memorandum was written for the proposed rule and direct final rule, and the estimates of the impacts did not change for the final rule.

In the original 2006 rulemaking, the EPA assumed that, even in the absence of the NSPS, emissions from stationary CI engines would be reduced to the same emission levels as nonroad CI engines through Tier 3, because engine manufacturers frequently use the same engine in both nonroad and stationary applications. Emission reductions and costs were only estimated for the difference between compliance with the Tier 3 standard and compliance with the Tier 4 standard in the original rulemaking. 8 Using a similar assumption, the foregone PM reductions and costs from these amendments are calculated based on the difference in emissions between the engines that are expected to be used once these amendments are finalized, which are Tier 3 marine CI engines because of heat recovery abilities of marine engines, and the engines currently required by the regulations (known as the baseline), which are Tier 3 nonroad CI engines (either land-nonroad or marine) with a DPF. If the baseline is assumed to be a Tier 3 land-based nonroad CI engine with a DPF, then the foregone PM reductions, based on the difference between a Tier 3 marine CI engine and a Tier 3 land-based nonroad CI engine with a DPF, are 5.3 tons per year in the first year after the amendments. In the fifth year after the amendments, the foregone PM reductions would be 27 tons of PM per year, assuming the number of new engines installed each year remains constant. If the baseline is assumed to be a Tier 3 marine CI engine with a DPF, foregone PM reductions are 6.6 tons of PM per year in the first year and 33 tons of PM in the fifth year. The cost savings in the fifth year after the amendments are estimated to be approximately $8.0 million (2017 dollars). The cost savings are the same for either baseline (Tier 3 land-based nonroad or Tier 3 marine). We also show the cost savings using a present value (PV) in adherence to Executive Order 13771. The PV of the cost savings is estimated in 2016 dollars as $322.9 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $111.2 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. Finally, the annualized cost savings over time can be shown as an equivalent annualized value (EAV), a value calculated consistent with the PV. The EAV of the cost savings is estimated in 2016 dollars as $9.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $7.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. All of these PV and EAV estimates are discounted to 2016 and assume an indefinite time period after promulgation for their calculation.

Note that the AEA has indicated that owners and operators of engines in remote communities have been delaying replacement of older engines because of the cost and concerns about having to install new engines with DPFs. Thus, the costs and additional PM emission reductions from engines installed in 2014 and later have not been occurring as expected when the rule was originally issued in 2006. According to the AEA, if these amendments are not finalized, the remote communities will likely continue delaying replacement of older engines and will not receive the benefits of the reduced PM emissions that will occur if the older engines are replaced by new Tier 3 CI engines. Replacing an older engine with an engine meeting the Tier 3 CI engine emission standard results in a significant reduction in PM emissions compared to the older engine's emissions. For example, for a 238 horsepower (HP) engine, PM emissions from a Tier 3 marine CI engine are reduced by 80 percent from a Tier 0  9 engine.

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 considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0590. This action does not impose an information collection burden because the EPA is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action reduces the impact of the rule on owners and operators of stationary CI engines located in remote areas of Alaska. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. While some Native Alaskan tribes and villages could be impacted by this amendment, this rule would reduce the compliance costs for owners and operators of stationary CI engines in remote areas of Alaska. 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 it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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.

While some Native Alaskan tribes and villages could be impacted by this amendment, the EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The amendments will not have a significant effect on emissions and will likely remove barriers to the installation of new, lower emission engines in remote communities.

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).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60 is amended as follows:

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Gulf includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for Gulf migratory group king mackerel (Gulf king mackerel) below apply as either round or gutted weight.

The king mackerel commercial ACL in the Gulf is divided into separate ACLs for hook-and-line and run-around gillnet gear. The use of run-around gillnets for king mackerel is restricted to the Gulf southern zone. The Gulf southern zone, which includes the EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties in south Florida, encompasses an area of the EEZ south of a line extending due west from the boundary of Lee and Collier Counties on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east from the boundary of Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties on the Florida east coast (50 CFR 622.369(a)(1)(iii)).

For the 2018-2019 fishing season, the commercial gillnet quota for Gulf king mackerel was 585,900 lb (265,760 kg). Regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) require NMFS to close any component of the king mackerel commercial sector when its respective quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification with the Office of the Federal Register. On February 8, 2019, NMFS determined that the 2018-2019 commercial gillnet quota had been reached, and closed the commercial gillnet component for the remainder of the 2018-2019 fishing year (84 FR 3723, February 13, 2019).

NMFS' most recent landings data for the 2018-2019 fishing year indicate that the commercial gillnet component exceeded the 585,900-lb (265,760-kg) quota by 45,357 lb (20,573 kg). The AM specified in 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(iii) states if commercial landings of king mackerel caught by run-around gillnet gear exceed the commercial gillnet ACL, then NMFS will reduce the commercial gillnet ACL in the following fishing year by the amount of the overage.

The 2019-2020 commercial gillnet ACL for Gulf king mackerel in the southern zone is 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(iii)(B)). The fishing season is currently closed from July 1, 2019, through January 20, 2020, and will open at 6 a.m. on January 21, 2020. The 2019-2020 fishing year runs through June 30, 2020.

Consistent with the AM, NMFS reduces the 2019-2020 commercial gillnet quota by the amount of the 2018-2019 commercial gillnet ACL overage to 530,043 lb (240,423 kg). If king mackerel commercial gillnet landings do not exceed the ACL in the 2019-2020 fishing year, then in the 2020-2021 fishing year, the component's commercial quota will again be 575,400 lb (260,997 kg) as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(iii)(B).

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf king mackerel and is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1)(iii) 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 prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to reduce the commercial ACL for the fishery component that uses run-around gillnet gear 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. Such procedure is unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial ACL and the associated AM for the commercial ACL reduction has already been subject to public notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the commercial ACL reduction.

Background

Under its process for managing species that are managed by both the states and NMFS, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission makes a management decision, and then recommends that the Federal government enact regulations to complement these measures when appropriate. The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. ) directs the Federal government to support the management efforts of the Commission and, to the extent the Federal government seeks to regulate a Commission species, to develop regulations that are compatible with the Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan and consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's National Standards.

Historically, Jonah crabs ( Cancer borealis ) have been harvested as an incidental catch in the American lobster trap fishery. Lobster harvesters did not target Jonah crabs but sometimes retained and sold crabs caught while lobster fishing. Eventually, the Jonah crab market expanded, and lobster harvesters began modifying fishing practices to target Jonah crabs. Landings have dramatically increased from nearly 3 million lb (1,361 mt) in 1994 to a high of over 17 million lb (7,711 mt) in 2015.

The Commission initiated management of Jonah crab out of concern for its future sustainability. Fishery managers became concerned by the rapid increase in Jonah crab landings, particularly because the impacts of the significantly increased fishing pressure are not clear. There is no stock assessment for Jonah crab and no biological reference points, so we do not know whether the stock is overfished or if overfishing is occurring. Managers fear that if overfishing does occur, that it could continue unabated, because the only regulatory protections for Jonah crabs are imposed by lobster fishery regulations. At present, the Jonah crab fishery is unregulated in Federal waters; any unpermitted vessel can fish for any amount of crabs, with unlimited amounts of gear. Prior to development of the Commission's Jonah Crab Plan, some states attempted to implement some control over state Jonah crab harvesters ( e.g., limiting Jonah crab harvest to those with a valid lobster permit), but these regulations were often inconsistent between the states. The market provided some additional stock protection. Only crabs above a 5-inch (12.7-cm) carapace length were marketable and, thus, crabs with a smaller carapace width were not harvested and returned to the sea.

The Commission's American Lobster Management Board manages the Jonah crab fishery because of the link between the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. The Commission approved an Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Jonah Crab in August 2015, following its public process for review and approval of management actions. The goal of the Commission's Jonah Crab Plan is “to promote conservation, reduce the possibility of recruitment failure, and allow the full utilization of the resource by the industry.” In general, the plan attempted to maintain the fishery as it existed prior to approval of the plan in 2015 and cap fishing effort at the 2015 levels. For example, this involved establishing a fishery that was limited to and prosecuted by lobster trap harvesters. Shortly after the Commission approved the plan, the Commission initiated and approved Addenda I and II, refining incidental catch limits and claw-only measures. These documents are available on the Commission's website at: http://www.asmfc.org/species/jonah-crab. The Commission formally recommended that the Secretary of Commerce implement complementary Federal measures to the Jonah Crab Plan on September 8, 2015. The Commission amended the Jonah Crab Plan to include additional measures and the Secretary to include those additional measures as part of the Federal rulemaking process on February 8, 2017.

This rule approves the following measures (Table 1) which are consistent with the Commission's recommendations in the Jonah Crab Plan and its addenda. Measures are discussed in greater detail below.

Only vessels with Federal lobster permits can fish for and harvest Jonah crab. As a result, there is no need to separately qualify or issue a Jonah crab-specific permit. Tying Jonah crab access to the lobster permits allows managers to take advantage of existing lobster regulations to protect Jonah crabs particularly because the Jonah crab fishery has historically been prosecuted by lobster permit holders using lobster traps. The Jonah crab fishery will have trap limits and gear configuration requirements because the pots used are considered lobster traps under our regulations at 50 CFR 697.2 and subject to all the restrictions required by our lobster regulations set forth in 50 CFR part 697.

This action is not expected to prevent historical Jonah crab harvesters from Jonah crab fishing in the future. Analysis of Federal and state harvest data completed during development of the Commission's plan identified that all Jonah crab trap harvesters held an American lobster permit. In multiple advance notices of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 31347, June 2, 2015; 81 FR 70658, October 13, 2016), we requested information to identify any Jonah crab harvesters that did not hold a lobster permit, which would inform our proposal to link Jonah crab harvest to the existing lobster permit structure. We received no comments in response to these notices identifying Jonah crab harvesters that did not have a lobster permit. Since that time, one state has identified Jonah crab-only harvesters in state waters, and there is no evidence that these Jonah crab-only harvesters participated in the fishery in federal waters. We concluded that linking Jonah crab harvest to the existing American lobster permitting structure is appropriate.

Commercial non-trap lobster permit holders may land an incidental amount of Jonah crabs (meeting both the incidental limit and incidental definition, discussed below) (see Table 1). As with trap harvesters, non-trap harvesters must comply with all applicable lobster regulations.

Charter/party-permitted vessels and recreational anglers may possess Jonah crabs but must comply with the recreational requirements (see Table 1). Finally, recreational anglers may not set trap gear.

We are implementing a minimum carapace width size of 4 3/4 inches (12.065 cm). The purpose of a minimum size restriction is to protect crabs until they mature and have an opportunity to reproduce. This size restriction should have a negligible impact on the fishing industry because Jonah crabs smaller than 4 3/4 inches (12.065 cm) have not been traditionally marketable and therefore, were not harvested. The Commission's Jonah Crab Plan Development Team (PDT) attempted to identify Jonah crab size at maturity and found that, “data suggests that both sexes reach near 100 percent maturity by 3 35/64 inches (9.0 cm).” We are implementing the Commission-recommended minimum carapace width because it has biological benefits ( i.e., ensures that the majority of crabs have the opportunity to reproduce) and is enforceable. Approving the same size restrictions in this action ensures consistent size restrictions in state and Federal waters.

We are approving a prohibition on retaining egg-bearing female Jonah crabs. Approving this prohibition helps to align state and Federal regulations. We are also prohibiting the removal of eggs from an egg-bearing female Jonah crab. While not specifically considered by the Commission, this measure complements the Jonah Crab Plan by closing a potential enforcement loophole which could allow a harvester to circumvent the prohibition of possessing egg-bearing female Jonah crabs by removing the eggs. Finally, this prohibition has been an important and effective element of our lobster regulations, and therefore we think it is important to include a similar provision for Jonah crabs.

We are implementing an incidental catch limit of up to 1,000 crabs per trip for commercial non-trap lobster permit holders, as recommended in Addendum I. The Commission originally approved an incidental catch limit of up to 200 crabs per day and up to 500 crabs per trip which largely mirrored the lobster incidental catch limit. The PDT reviewed available catch information and determined that the original Jonah Crab Plan limit would have restricted some past trips which landed more than 200 crabs per day or 500 crabs per trip. The PDT determined that a limit of 1,000 crabs per trip would cover the majority of past landings from non-trap gear.

Because of the PDT's findings, the Commission revised the Plan's incidental catch limit of up to 1,000 crabs per trip for both non-trap gear and non-lobster trap gear as part of Addendum I. Our catch data corroborate the Commission's basis for revising the incidental catch limit as only three trips between 2010 and 2014 landed more than 900 lb (408.2 kg). Therefore, a Federal incidental catch of up to 1,000 crabs provides consistency between Federal and state regulations.

We are implementing a requirement that Jonah crabs cannot comprise more than 50 percent, by weight, of all species kept onboard a commercial non-trap permitted vessel. This is a second requirement governing the incidental possession of Jonah crabs that complements the maximum incidental catch limit of 1,000 crabs per trip. To further ensure that the incidental catch of Jonah crabs does not expand into a targeted fishery, the Commission developed and approved an incidental catch definition (called a “bycatch definition”) as part of Addendum II.

Percentage-based incidental catch caps have been used in other regionally managed fisheries and are enforceable. Therefore, consistent with the Commission's recommendation and to complement state measures already in effect, we are approving a requirement that, in addition to the incidental catch limit, Jonah crabs cannot comprise more than 50 percent, by weight, of all species kept onboard a vessel.

We are approving a dealer-permitting requirement and a mandatory dealer-reporting requirement for any dealer purchasing Jonah crabs from federally permitted vessels, consistent with all other regionally managed species.

The Commission did not explicitly discuss a permitting program for dealers purchasing Jonah crabs. Permitting is necessary to successfully implement a mandatory dealer-reporting program. Therefore, we are approving a requirement that a dealer obtain a Federal Jonah crab dealer permit if that dealer wishes to purchase Jonah crabs from a federally permitted lobster permit holder. Due to the overlap of Jonah crab and lobster harvest, our analysis shows that the vast majority of dealers currently purchasing Jonah crabs already have Federal dealer permits due to the other species purchased, specifically lobster. Requesting an additional fishery in the annual renewal application is not expected to add any additional burden to an applicant. Dealers may begin requesting this permit once the rule is effective. It will be issued and begin being enforced on January 1, 2020.

We are also requiring that all federally permitted Jonah crab dealers submit dealer reports electronically, on a weekly basis, consistent with dealer reporting requirements for all other regionally managed commercial fisheries, including lobster. The Jonah Crab Plan specified information to be collected in dealer reports. We are approving the collection of the Commission's recommended information. We will require the same information currently required in other fisheries, as well as some additional information. These requirements include: Dealer name; dealer permit number; name and permit number or name and hull number (U.S. Coast Guard documentation number or state registration number, whichever is applicable) of the vessel from which fish are purchased; trip identifier (vessel trip report identification number for vessels with mandatory vessel trip reporting requirement); date of purchase; units of measure and amount by species (by market category, if applicable); price per unit by species (by market category, if applicable) or total value by species (by market category, if applicable); port landed; disposition of the seafood product; and any other information deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator. Finally, to facilitate reporting of all market categories, we are adding additional species market codes to the dealer report, which will help more accurately assess Jonah crab landings. While this dealer permitting and reporting program is more expansive than what is specified in the Jonah Crab Plan, it is consistent with the Commission's intent and will ensure consistency with the dealer reporting requirements for other federally managed fisheries.

We are approving a prohibition on retaining egg-bearing female Jonah crabs in the recreational fishery, consistent with the Commission's recommendation. Development of this measure occurred in parallel to broodstock protection measures for the commercial fishery. For more background, please see Broodstock Protection under the Commercial Measures heading above.

We are approving a recreational Jonah crab harvest limit of 50 whole crabs per person, per day. Consistent with the Commission's recommendation and to complement state measures already in effect, we are implementing a recreational catch limit of 50 whole crabs per person, per day. Consistent with the regulations for recreational harvest of American lobster, non-trap gear must be used to harvest Jonah crab recreationally, including diving, charter/party trips, and personal angling. While little information exists on the recreational fishery, this limit balances recreational access to the fishery while restricting future expansion.

We are not imposing a landing disposition requirement at this time. Landing disposition requirements, like the incidental landing limit, evolved during the development of the Jonah Crab Plan and its addenda. In a first attempt to capture regional harvesting differences in the Jonah Crab Plan, the Commission approved a whole crab fishery with an exemption for individuals who could prove a history of claw landings before the June 2, 2015, control date in the states of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. During the development of the Jonah Crab Plan, we advocated for a whole-crab fishery due to biological, enforcement, and for better coastwide management consistency.

The Commission reconsidered its claw fishery requirements as part of Addendum II. This effort included a thorough investigation of state and Federal landings data in an attempt to determine the extent of Jonah crab claw landings. The Jonah Crab PDT developed a range of potential management measures, including: (1) Status quo (a whole crab fishery with an exemption for southern states); (2) a whole crab fishery coastwide; and (3) a coastwide regulated claw fishery. Incidental volumetric measure claw limits such as a maximum of one 5-gallon (18.93 L) bucket were also discussed. During the development of Addendum II, we again advocated for a whole-crab fishery, but we supported options that would allow a small amount of claw-only landings. The Commission ultimately approved a measure that established a coastwide standard for claw harvest, allowing for an unlimited amount of claws to be harvested subject to a minimum claw length requirement.

In response, states have implemented a wide range of measures. Some allow the harvest of an unlimited amount of claws that meet the minimum size; others allow harvest of a maximum of one 5-gallon (18.93 L) bucket of claws, while others allow only whole crabs to be landed. The Commission recommended that we implement complementary claw fishery measures, but the variety of state regulations complicates our ability to create complementary Federal regulations. Specifically, it is challenging to issue a single Federal regulation that is consistent with state landing disposition requirements, when the state regulations themselves are inconsistent. Because the states can effectively regulate this matter on shore without complementary regulations, we are not issuing regulations for a landing disposition at this time. As such, states will regulate crab landing disposition shore-side. We will monitor the effectiveness of these state regulations to determine whether future Federal regulation will be necessary. Deferring action on this issue is expected to minimize disconnects between state and Federal regulations.

The Commission recommended a 100-percent mandatory harvester-reporting program as part of the Jonah Crab Plan but allowed jurisdictions requiring less than 100 percent of lobster harvester reporting to maintain their current programs and extend them to Jonah crab. The Jonah Crab Plan established specific information to be reported, including: A unique trip identification (link to dealer report); vessel number; trip start date; location (NMFS stat area); traps hauled; traps set; quantity (lb); trip length; soak time in hours and minutes; and target species. We intend to restrict Jonah crab harvest to Federal lobster permit holders, and at present, there is no mandatory harvester-reporting requirement for Federal lobster permit holders. Therefore, we do not intend to modify Federal lobster permit holder's reporting requirements through this action. This action, however, will add an additional species code to the vessel trip report to better capture the landings of Jonah crab claws in states that permit such activity.

In recent months, the Commission has given additional consideration to the reporting requirements in both the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. In February 2018, the Commission approved Addendum XXVI to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster, which also serves as Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. The intent of Lobster Addendum XXVI/Jonah crab Addendum III is to expand lobster harvester reporting requirements, enhance the spatial and effort data collections, and improve the amount and type of biological data collected in the offshore trap fishery. Given the offshore expansion of lobster trap effort in recent years, the Commission developed this addendum to address data gaps from inconsistent reporting and data collection requirements across state and Federal agencies. As a result, the recommended Jonah crab reporting will be subsumed by the lobster reporting requirements that the Commission already made as part of Addendum XXVI to the Lobster Plan/Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. We are currently developing a proposed rule in a separate action to consider adopting these expanded lobster and Jonah crab harvester reporting recommendations. We expect the proposed measures to publish in late 2019 and the rule to implement requirements to occur in 2020.

Since the Commission's approval of the Jonah Crab Plan, several organizations have established Jonah crab research programs focused on the research needs identified in the Plan. Researchers from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation (CFRF), and the University of Maryland have requested exempted fishing permits (EFPs), including exemptions from Jonah crab regulations, to conduct research on migration, growth rates, and maturity in Federal waters. Because no Federal regulations existed for Jonah crab, we advised researchers that they were free to conduct their research activities in Federal waters, but that exemptions from lobster regulations would be required.

We issued EFPs to MA DMF and CFRF, and the University of Maryland in 2019. These projects have centered on the collection of crabs and lobster using ventless traps and, to date, have received exemptions from the lobster trap regulations, including exemptions from escape vent, trap tagging, and number of allowable traps requirements. Several of these studies are also collecting information on lobsters, and therefore have exemptions from lobster possession provisions in regulations, including provisions on minimum and maximum size, egg-bearing females, etc.

This action expands the exemptions granted to these three research projects to include exemptions from the proposed Jonah crab regulations, as outlined in Table 2. New EFPs will be issued to these researchers, coinciding with the effective date of these measures. These exemptions do not expand the scope or scale of any existing research projects; they are intended to allow these research activities to continue without interruption.

Once approved, the applicants may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. We may grant EFP modifications and extensions without further notice if the modifications and extensions are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP requests. The EFPs would prohibit any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activities. Finally, we invite any other organizations conducting Jonah crab research to contact us to discuss whether their research activities will require Federal permits.

Two documents solicited comment on this action: A control date advance notice of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 31347; June 2, 2015) and a notice of intent for the environmental impact statement (EIS)/advance notice of proposed rulemaking (81 FR 70658; October 13 2016). Comments were received from: The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association; the Center for Biological Diversity; and two members of the public. We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 22, 2019 (84 FR 10756), soliciting public comment on the proposed Jonah Crab Plan measures. The comment period ended on April 22, 2019. We received eight letters from two fishery organizations, the New England Fishery Management Council, two Jonah crab harvesters, a group of environmental advocacy organizations, and two members of the public. Only comments that were applicable to the proposed measures are addressed below. Consolidated responses are provided to similar comments on the proposed measures.

Comment 1: The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association supported the establishment of a control date for the Jonah crab fishery, believing that it will discourage speculative entry into the fishery during the interim period before the states and NMFS published regulations to manage the fishery.

Response: We agree. A central purpose of the control date was to put harvesters on notice of the potential regulatory restrictions and prevent speculation. Available information suggests that speculative fishing was limited.

Comment 2: An anonymous comment opposed establishing a control date. The commenter argued that it was inappropriate for NMFS to issue a control date at the request of the Commission when the fishery takes place in Federal waters and the New England Fishery Management Council expressed interest in management, as Council management would take precedence over Commission management.

Response: We disagree. The control date provided notice to the public of potential future regulations and its purpose and value is independent of its origin from either the Commission or the Council. Here, the Commission's involvement makes sense given the overlap between the lobster fishery and Jonah crab fishery. Notwithstanding the Commission's role in developing its Jonah Crab Plan, the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils have been consulted on this matter. Many members of the Commission's Lobster Board are also Council members and a New England Council member was invited to represent the Council's Jonah crab interests on the Lobster Board. The Council has participated in Commission decision-making and voted to adopt Commission's actions at the Lobster Board. Because of this, we feel that it was appropriate to issue a control date at the Commission's request.

Comment 3: During development of the rulemaking and EIS, the Center for Biological Diversity raised concern about large whale entanglements in Jonah crab traps and requested that the EIS consider impacts to large whales, specifically the north Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis).

Response: We are mindful of potential impacts between the Jonah crab fishery and large whales and analyzed trap impacts in Section 5 of the EIS. This analysis will be ongoing because this action folds the Jonah crab fishery into the lobster fishery. Before this action, any unpermitted individual could fish an unlimited number of traps in Federal waters for Jonah crab. Now Jonah crab fishing is restricted to lobster permit holders and any traps used to target Jonah crabs are considered lobster traps, subject to all lobster regulations. This new regulatory framework ensures that the fishery's impacts to whales will be analyzed in NMFS' ongoing fishery Biological Opinion, as well as the recommendations made by the Large Whale Take Reduction Team in April 2019, and all lobster reporting requirements in response to Commission Addendum XXVI.

Comment 4: During development of the rulemaking and EIS, the Center for Biological Diversity stated the spatial information should be included in the reporting requirements.

Response: We agree. NMFS is developing spatial information reporting requirements in a separate rulemaking that addresses the recommendations of Addendum XXVI to the Lobster Plan/Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. This future rulemaking will also consider reporting needs from the Lobster and Jonah Crab Plan, which requires the following information as part of harvester reports: A unique trip ID (link to dealer report), vessel number, trip start date, location (statistical area), traps hauled, traps set, quantity (lb), trip length, soak time in hours and minutes, and target species. These requirements were intended to match the reporting requirements associated with the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster, as these two fisheries are linked. Due to the overlap with North Atlantic right whales, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team may recommend additional reporting requirements. Such requirements may be incorporated into this future rulemaking.

Comment 5: During development of the rulemaking and EIS, one individual opposed the development of Federal Jonah crab regulations, preferring that the fishery be closed to commercial harvest, stating that Jonah crabs are a food source for birds and marine mammals.

Response: The Commission developed the Jonah Crab Plan out of precaution and potential concern for the Jonah crab resource given the recent and rapid increase in landings. There is no stock assessment for Jonah crab, but the science does not presently support a complete closure of the fishery. The population has been able to sustain past increases in commercial landings, as described in Section 4.5.2 of the EIS. Fishing effort has been capped at such levels. We are taking action, as requested by the Commission, to implement complementary regulations in Federal waters. This action is expected to put some initial limits on Jonah crab harvest and implement reporting requirements, adding to our information and making a future stock assessment possible.

Comment 6: The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association commented in support of Federal rulemaking at multiple stages and highlighted the need for the commercial management measures approved in this rule. One commercial lobster harvester resubmitted a copy of a letter that was submitted to the Commission in 2014 supporting Jonah Crab Plan development. The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance generally supported proposed measures. All three letters supported linking Jonah crab harvest to the lobster permit structure.

Response: We agree and are developing regulations consistent with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Commission's recommendations in the Jonah Crab Plan. For additional rationale, please refer to Approved Measures.

Comment 7: One harvester, who identified himself as a Jonah crab-only harvester without a lobster permit, disagreed with our proposal to link Jonah crab harvest to the lobster permit structure. Instead, the commenter proposed establishing a targeted Jonah crab permit to allow targeted harvesters to land an unlimited amount of crabs and 100 lobster per day as bycatch, arguing that the Jonah crab fishery has “emerged as its own fishery separate from lobster.”

Response: The best available information suggests that the Jonah crab fishery is not separate from the lobster fishery. Landings data available during the development of the Jonah Crab Plan indicated that between approximately 91-99 percent of Cancer crabs (both Jonah crabs and rock crabs) were harvested from lobster permit holder in their trap gear. Data further suggests that the fishery began as unintentional catch; crabs now are increasingly a targeted catch from lobster traps. This obvious linkage is the basis for the American Lobster Board overseeing management and is a primary driver behind the recommendation to link Jonah crab harvest to the lobster permit structure.

There is no justification to qualify and issue Jonah crab-only permits. As discussed above, on several different occasions, we requested information to identify any Jonah crab harvesters that did not hold a lobster permit. One of these requests coincided with a 2015 control date, intended to promote awareness of possible future rulemaking, and discourage speculative entry into and/or investment in the Jonah crab fishery. We received no comments in response to these earlier requests for information. In addition, only one state has identified Jonah-crab only harvesters and only in state waters. As no other information has been presented that helps to identify Jonah crab harvesters without a lobster permit in Federal waters prior to the 2015 control date and the commenter indicated that his entry into the fishery occurred after the 2015 control date, which was designed to prevent such speculative entry, we are linking Jonah crab harvest to the lobster permit structure.

Finally, it would be problematic for NMFS to authorize additional effort in the lobster fishery without consulting the Commission, the American Lobster Board, and our partner states as it would create an inconsistency with the Lobster Plan and with state regulations. The Commission specifically endorsed linking Jonah crab harvest to the lobster permit structure. The Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster strictly controls harvest. Any additional effort in the fishery should be considered through the Commission's open and public process.

In sum, the administrative and enforcement efficiencies, as well as the biological benefits (to crabs, lobsters, and whales) weighed against the negative time and resources impacts and ineffectiveness caused by creating an inconsistent Federal Jonah crab-only fishery that would potentially benefit only one individual, all provide the basis for our linking the fisheries.

Comment 8: The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, and one industry member supported the proposed minimum size. The other industry member supported a 5-inch (12.7-cm) minimum size.

Response: We agree with the commenters and are approving a 4 3/4 -inch (12.065-cm) minimum carapace width. Due to the significant overlap with the American lobster fishery, the Commission's American Lobster Board has overseen management, as recommended. The Board has developed many coastwide measures ( i.e., all but claw provisions that are state-by-state) that states have implemented, which will now be complemented in Federal waters through this action.

When developing measures for the fishery, Lobster Board considered a range of minimum sizes. These measures were included in the draft Jonah Crab Plan and taken out to public comment. As discussed in greater detail in the proposed rule, the Commission selected a minimum size of 4 3/4 inches (12.065 cm) because it balances market demands, biological concerns over the size at which crabs become mature, and industry concerns that enforcement officials would issue violations for crabs that are just under the market-preferred size in this high-volume fishery where measuring each crab may be difficult.

We considered and analyzed both 4 3/4 -inch (12.065-cm) and 5-inch (12.7-cm) minimum sizes as alternatives in the accompanying EIS. While they are reasonable, approving a measure that is inconsistent with what the states have already promulgated would create a significant inconsistency between state and Federal regulations for this species. Any inconsistency increases the difficultly to achieve coordinated management, administrative and enforcement objectives, and creates additional confusion about applicable regulations for harvesters. Due to these potential negative effects, we have approved a minimum size that is consistent with Commission recommendations and state requirements.

Comment 9: The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, the New England Fishery Management Council, and one member of the public supported the prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing female Jonah crabs. Both harvesters supported prohibiting the retention of all female Jonah crabs, with one identifying egg-bearing female Jonah crabs as needing specific protections.

Response: We agree with the associations and one member of the public that the approved broodstock protection measures will provide protections for the Jonah crab fishery, consistent with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act and the Commission's recommendations in the Jonah Crab Plan. When developing the Jonah Crab Plan, the Lobster Board considered protections for egg bearing female crabs and all female crabs as management alternatives. Both alternatives help ensure that eggs are given the opportunity to hatch and add to the population and similar measures have been successfully used in the lobster fishery, under the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster. Ultimately, the Commission selected to prohibit the possession of egg-bearing female crabs. The Jonah Crab Plan and the EIS both note that the vast majority of female crabs (96-98 percent) are smaller than the minimum size. As such, approving only a prohibition on egg-bearing female Jonah crabs is more targeted to the Commission's objective of giving eggs the opportunity to hatch and contribute to the overall crab population. Most states had already implemented regulations to prohibit possession of egg-bearing female crabs by June 1, 2016.

While both broodstock protection alternatives are reasonable, approving measures that are inconsistent with what the states have already promulgated would create a significant inconsistency between state and Federal regulations for this species. Due to the potential negative effects associated with inconsistencies, we have approved a prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing female Jonah crabs, consistent with Commission recommendations and state requirements.

Comment 10: The New England Council and one member of the public supported the incidental catch limit.

Response: We agree. The Commission spent several meetings establishing the incidental catch limit in the original Jonah Crab Plan and then perfected it in Addendum I. Ultimately, the Commission approved a new, expanded limit of up to 1,000 crabs per trip for both non-trap gear and non-lobster trap gear as part of Addendum I. The Commission expected that this revised limit would be more consistent with the maximum incidental catch that existed in 2015 prior to developing the Jonah Crab Plan while preventing future expansion of the incidental fishery into a larger or more targeted fishery. Our catch data corroborated the Commission's basis for revising the incidental catch limit as only 3 trips between 2010 and 2014 landed more than 900 lb (408.2 kg). A Federal incidental catch of up to 1,000 crabs provides consistency between Federal and state regulations, thereby avoiding negative impacts associated with inconsistency, as outlined in the response to Comment 8.

Comment 11: The Council, the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance, and one member of the public supported the proposed dealer requirements.

Response: We agree. Mandatory dealer reporting in the will provide much needed fishery information. Such information will inform future science and management of this species.

Comment 12: The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance supported “measures to expand research in the fishery to fill gaps in knowledge,” noting that such research could help refine management measures and encouraged that a stock assessment be conducted as soon as possible to “ensure that overfishing is not likely to occur in this burgeoning fishery, allowing it to thrive for generations.”

Response: We agree that additional data and research is needed on this data-poor species. Mandatory dealer reporting in the immediate future and mandatory harvester reporting through a separate, future action should provide much needed fishery information. Such information will feed into a future stock assessment, which the Commission identified as a high priority need in the Jonah Crab Plan. The Plan already requires jurisdictions to collect the following information from port/sea sampling: Carapace width, sex, discard information, egg-bearing status, cull status, shell hardness, and whether the landings are whole crabs or parts. Together, this fishery dependent and independent data will be useful to measure the effectiveness of management measures, including the minimum size and to monitor the claw-only fishery in states where it is allowed. These data will inform a future stock assessment. In the interim, the Plan requires that the Lobster Board conduct an annual review of management measures, state data collections, and research needs, which helps to bridge the gap until a stock assessment is scheduled.

Additional research will be critical to answering some of the larger questions about this species. The Plan specifies biological, habitat, and economic research needs, which partner states have begun to address with and without research permits. We encourage additional research on this species and will consider exemptions to lobster and Jonah crab regulations to facilitate future research.

Comment 13: The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association noted, “it may be appropriate to modify the language in [F]ederal code 50 CFR 697 to specify that those measures apply to both lobster and Jonah crab fisheries.”

Response: We appreciate the collaboration with and support of the Association in the development and approval of these measures. Staff involved in the management of American lobster and Jonah crab reviewed the existing lobster regulation found at 50 CFR part 697 for any needed revisions based on this rulemaking. Several changes to the lobster-specific regulations were proposed and are implemented by this final rule. No additional changes are necessary to 50 CFR part 697, as these measures are solely derived from Commission recommendations based on measures in the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster, and further clarification is not necessary.

Comment 14: The group of environmental advocacy organizations supported the proposed management measures and recommended the following additional requirements:

1. A 100-percent catch reporting requirement at the trip-level for all limited-access American lobster permit holders;

2. A lost gear reporting requirement;

3. A requirement to report all data including fishing location by 10-minute squares (10nm x 10nm) or a finer spatial scale if available;

4. A requirement to report all data electronically;

5. A requirement for electronic vessel monitoring; and

6. A requirement to mark gear by fishery and statistical area fished on at least every 40 feet (12.2 m) of line.

In addition, the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association supported the expeditious approval of 100-percent Jonah crab and lobster harvester reporting. Similarly, the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance noted that additional reporting requirements, including harvester reporting and vessel monitoring systems/electronic tracking would improve data collection and be consistent with other fisheries.

Response: We agree. NMFS intends to propose joint Jonah crab/American lobster harvester reporting requirements in a rulemaking based upon Addendum XXVI to the American Lobster Plan/Addendum III to the Jonah Crab Plan. Harvester reporting was not added to this action for several reasons. First, substantial development of this Jonah-crab specific action had already taken place. Second, adding Jonah crab-specific reporting requirements would be a de-facto reporting requirement for the lobster industry which would have expanded the scope of this action. Third, a lobster-specific rulemaking was in development at a stage where lobster reporting could be easily considered. To that end, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27747), announcing our intent to consider expanded lobster and Jonah crab harvester reporting requirements and expect publication of a proposed rule later in 2019, with implementation targeted for 2020.

We agree that additional data elements will aid in the future management of the lobster fishery and in assessing impacts to protected species. To that end, we have committed to a multi-year overhaul of our fishery reporting systems which will include an increase in electronic reporting, more intuitive forms, and additional data fields that may be pertinent to specific fisheries or gear types. We look forward to engaging with all of our partners on this effort.

Comment 15: The group of environmental advocacy organizations stated, “NMFS must ensure that the ASMFC's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for the Jonah crab fishery complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements of both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.” The letter further noted that “the existing Biological Opinion for the American lobster fishery is inadequate. . . therefore any new fishing authorized by the existing limited-access American lobster permit would be inherently unlawful until the new consultation is completed.” Finally, the letter stated “until fishing gear that does not include an unattended endline/buoyline is commercially available and legally required, NMFS must take every reasonable step to decrease the number of vertical lines in the water when North Atlantic right whales are present.”

Response: The comment contains legal argument that is the subject of ongoing litigation and is beyond the scope of detailed response in this document. We note, however, that this action restricts the Jonah crab fishery and its gear. Previously unregulated, the Jonah crab fishery will now be regulated as part of the lobster fishery because the fisheries coincide and are both prosecuted using the same lobster trap gear. The lobster fishery which is managed pursuant to the ASMFC's Interstate Lobster Fishery Management Plan, is undergoing endline/buoyline analysis and restriction as part of the Large Whale Take Reduction Team Process and Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation reinitiation. Because the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries coincide and overlap, the 2014 Biological Opinion for the American lobster fishery analyzed the effect of this mixed lobster and Jonah crab fishery on endangered species and provides Endangered Species Act Section 7 coverage for the Jonah crab fishery. The agency has re-initiated Section 7 consultation on the lobster fishery, which will necessarily include analysis of the Jonah crab fishery.

Minor corrections to improve technical accuracy and clarity of the regulatory text were made between proposed and final rules.

The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the Jonah crab fishery and that it is consistent with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, applicable provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.

NMFS prepared a final EIS for this action. The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 4, 2019. A notice of availability was published on June 14, 2019 (84 FR 27777). NMFS issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the selected alternatives. A copy of the ROD is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as defined in E.O. 13132. NMFS has consulted with the states in the creation of the Jonah Crab Plan, which makes recommendations for Federal action. The approved measures are based upon the Jonah Crab Plan and its addenda, which were created by the Commission, and, as such, were created by, and are overseen by, the states. These measures are already in place at the state level. Additionally, these measures would not preempt state law and would not regulate the states.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to assess the economic impacts of their proposed regulations on small entities. The objective of the RFA is to consider the impacts of a rulemaking on small entities, and the capacity of those affected by regulations to bear the direct and indirect costs of regulation. A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA consists of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the relevant portions of the proposed rule describing the proposed management measures, the corresponding analysis in the EIS prepared for this action, and the responses to public comments included in this final rule. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

No public comments were received pertaining directly to the economic effects of this rule.

The action will implement regulations affecting commercial fishing activities (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411), seafood dealers (NAICS code 424460), and operators of party/charter businesses (NAICS code 487210). Because each of these activities has their own size standard under the RFA, consideration of the number of regulated entities and the potential economic impacts of the action for each NAICS code is discussed below.

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination as to whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the three years from 2014 through 2016.

Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines the term “affiliation” in its regulations. According to these regulations, affiliation may arise among two or more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated (13 CFR 121.103(f)).

We applied the Small Business Administration's definition of affiliation to NMFS's 2016 vessel ownership data to determine the number of affiliated regulated entities that were associated with at least one limited access lobster permit. During 2016, there were 2,377 limited access lobster permits included in the ownership database, of which 640 designated non-trap only, 1,597 designated trap only, and 140 designated both a trap and a non-trap gear. Table 8 summarizes the number of large and small entities after the principals of affiliation were applied. Note that the number of regulated entities is less than the number of permitted vessels because a small number affiliated ownership groups own more than one permit.

Dealer data are the primary source of data used to estimate gross receipts for purposes of size class determination. Although dealer data are the best available source of revenues earned from commercial fishing, it generally lacks gear information, which is needed to estimate the number of affected trap gear entities. For this reason, vessel trip reports (VTRs) are used to estimate the number of affected participating lobster trap gear entities. As previously noted, a significant number of vessel owners possess only a limited access lobster permit and are not subject to mandatory reporting. Despite this, the analysis, which is based on vessel owners that do possess at least one other permit for which VTRs are mandatory, is representative of the fleet of limited access lobster trap permit holders.

The number of permitted limited access trap vessels that reported one or more lobster trap trips from 2014-2016 ranged from 400 in 2014 to 412 in 2016. None of these vessels relied exclusively on Jonah crab. Percent of trips and vessels landing lobster-only, Jonah crab-only, or both is summarized in Table 4.

As previously noted, the ownership data used to determine the number of affected entities is based on aggregated dealer data. Because the action will affect limited access lobster non-trap permits, we used VTR data to determine the number of participating vessels that will be affected by the action. Analysis of data from 2010 through 2014 presented in Addendum I to the Jonah Crab Plan indicated only three trips would have exceeded the proposed trip limit. Table 6 summarizes the number of limited access lobster non-trap permit holders, trips, trips landings Jonah crabs, and trips exceeding the approved limit. While the incidental limit is defined in number of crabs, this analysis relies on lb landed, as weight of catch and counts of crabs is reported by harvesters and dealers. An assumption that a crab weighs one lb (0.45 kg) was used; however, this assumption may be an underestimate given that the market favors larger crabs. The median value of this distribution ranged from a high of 1,175 lb (533 kg) in 2014 to a low of 1,046 lb (474 kg) in 2015.