I. Introduction

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is issuing this Bulletin to residential mortgage servicers and subservicers (collectively, servicers), in light of potential risks to consumers that may arise in connection with transfers of residential mortgage servicing rights. This bulletin covers: (A) Transfer-related policies and procedures, and (B) loan information and documents for ensuring accuracy.

A mortgage servicer, among other things, collects and processes loan payments on behalf of the owner of the mortgage note, conducts escrow related processes and handles loss mitigation as appropriate. Servicing transfers are common and may occur in several ways. The mortgage owner may sell the rights to service the loan, called the Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR), separately from the note ownership. The owner of the loan or MSR may, rather than servicing the loan itself, hire a vendor-typically called a subservicer-to take on the servicing duties or aspects of such servicing. MSR owners frequently sell MSR outright as an asset. Servicing transfers may also occur through whole loan servicing transfers or whole loan portfolio transfers, rather than through sales of MSR. In this document, we use the term “transfer” broadly to cover transfers of servicing rights as well as transfers of servicing responsibilities, in total or in part, through subservicing or whole loan servicing arrangements. The term “transferor” servicer means a servicer who transfers or will transfer the right to perform servicing functions pursuant to an agreement or understanding. The term “transferee” servicer means a servicer who obtains or who will obtain the right to perform servicing functions pursuant to an agreement or understanding.

As consumers do not have a choice with respect to the transfer of servicing, seamless and accurate transfers are important to prevent consumer harm. In 2014, the Bureau issued CFPB Bulletin 2014-01. 1 The Bulletin discussed the servicing transfer requirements in the Regulation X mortgage servicing rules. 2 The Bulletin also addressed frequently asked questions, the focus areas for Bureau examinations, and the other Federal consumer financial laws applicable to servicing transfers.

In supervisory examinations conducted since 2014, the Bureau has continued to find weaknesses in compliance management systems and violations of Regulation X related to mortgage servicing transfers. 3 Specifically, the Bureau has seen inadequacies in servicers' policies and procedures for transferring all the loan information and documents to the new servicer in a timely and accurate manner. It is also important that servicing functions continue on an uninterrupted basis during servicing transfers-such as the payment of taxes and insurance from escrow accounts or continuing to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete a loss mitigation application. Recent economic conditions and structural changes to the mortgage servicing market, including the growth of nonbank servicers that are not subject to the same capital standards as banks, contribute to these risks. 4

Taking into consideration the coronavirus pandemic that led to the President's declaration of a national emergency on March 13, 2020 (National Emergency), and the economic and social dislocations caused by the pandemic, for the duration of the National Emergency and for 120 days thereafter, if a servicing transfer is requested or required by a Federal regulator or by the security issuer of “Government Loans” (as defined in the CARES Act), the Bureau intends, for activity during this period, to consider the challenges that entities may face as a result, including operational and time constraints related to the transfer, and to be sensitive to good-faith efforts demonstrably designed to transfer the servicing without adverse impact to consumers. The Bureau intends to focus supervisory feedback for institutions, if needed, on identifying issues, correcting deficiencies, and ensuring appropriate remediation to consumers.

In its supervisory examinations, the Bureau reviews mortgage servicers for compliance with Regulation X servicing transfer requirements, which among other things, require servicers to maintain certain policies and procedures related to facilitating the transfer of information during mortgage servicing transfers. 5 Specifically, Regulation X requires transferor servicers to maintain policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objective of the timely transfer of all information and documents in the possession or control of the servicer relating to a transferred mortgage loan to a transferee servicer in a form and manner that ensures the accuracy of the information and documents transferred and that enables a transferee servicer to comply with the terms of the transferee servicer's obligations to the owner or assignee of the mortgage loan and applicable law. 6

Regulation X also requires transferee servicers to maintain policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the servicer can identify necessary documents or information that may not have been transferred by a transferor servicer and obtain such documents from the transferor servicer. 7 The following are examples of servicer practices that the Bureau may consider as contributing to policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives of these transfer requirements:

• For each transfer of mortgage servicing that occurs, developing a servicing transfer plan that includes a communications plan, testing plan (for system conversion), a timeline with key milestones and an escalation plan for potential problems.

• Conducting meetings to discuss and clarify issues with counterparties in a timely manner; for large transfers, this could occur months in advance of the transfer for the purposes of developing transfer plans and the obligations of all involved parties, including service providers and investors.

• Recognizing if the transfer cannot be implemented successfully in a single batch of all accounts and implementing alternative protocols, such as splitting the transfer into several smaller bundles of accounts to be transferred in subsequent months to ensure that the transferee can comply with its servicing obligations for every loan transferred.

• Determining servicing responsibilities for legacy accounts including tax reporting, credit bureau reporting and other questions that may arise.

• Using tailored testing protocols to evaluate the compatibility of the transferred data with the transferee servicer's systems and data mapping protocols.

• Proactively identifying material issues that potentially impact the accuracy or completeness of the loan data or documentation to be transferred as well as each servicer's ability to comply with the law or investor guidelines with respect to the transferred loans.

• Identifying any loans in default, active foreclosure and bankruptcy. Where applicable, include documentation regarding loss mitigation activity for each loan, including status and notes pertaining to the loss mitigation action, copies of agreements entered into with a borrower on a loss mitigation option, and any analysis by a servicer with respect to potential recovery from a non-performing mortgage loan.

• Engaging in quality control work after a transfer of preliminary data to validate that the data on the transferee's system matches the data submitted by the transferor. Prioritizing data mapping errors that occurred during de-boarding or on-boarding process for resolution.

• Conducting a post-transfer review or de-brief to determine effectiveness of the transfer plan and whether any gaps have arisen that require resolution.

• Monitoring consumer complaints and loss mitigation performance metrics including borrower engagement rate, approvals of trial modifications, repayment plans, non-home retention options, and completed workouts for at least four to six months post-transfer. Also monitoring for delinquencies, foreclosures and bankruptcies to detect trends, including for month-to-month increases after transfer.

As the composition and complexity of servicer portfolios vary, servicers may not need to implement all the example policies and procedures listed above in order to meet the objectives outlined in Regulation X. However, the Bureau emphasizes the importance of post-transfer monitoring to ensure that transferred data is complete, accurate and functional for the transferee. For example, the Bureau found at least one servicer that did not engage in adequate post-transfer validation with its transferee, which contributed to its failure to identify that it had not transmitted all the loss mitigation documents in its possession. Only after a borrower complained to the transferee did either servicer become aware that the transferor failed to send an executed loan modification agreement to the transferee. 8 Generally, transferees must have policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure, in connection with a servicing transfer, that the transferee receives copies of any loss mitigation applications and agreements, finds out about the status of any prior discussions with borrowers, and retrieves missing loss mitigation documents and information from the transferor servicer before asking the borrower for such information. 9 These obligations apply to any accounts for which the servicer's determination of the borrower's eligibility for loss mitigation is in process, including any short-term payment forbearance program or a short-term repayment plan that the servicer may offer based on an evaluation of an incomplete loss mitigation application. 10

The Bureau also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the transferred data after receipt. Under Regulation X, servicers must maintain certain documents and data on each mortgage loan account serviced by the servicer in a manner that facilitates compiling such documents and data into a servicing file within five days. 11 A servicing file includes, among other things, a schedule of all transactions credited or debited to the mortgage loan account (including to any escrow or suspense account), a copy of the security instrument, copies of any loan modifications, any notes created by servicer personnel reflecting communications with the borrower about the mortgage loan account, and to the extent applicable, a report of the data fields relating to the borrower's mortgage loan account. 12 Transferors must also retain records that document actions taken with respect to a borrower's mortgage loan account until one year after the date a mortgage loan is discharged or servicing of a mortgage loan is transferred by the servicer to a transferee servicer. 13 The Bureau encourages servicers to adopt strong policies and procedures for maintaining documents and information received in a transfer as part of an overall compliance program.

Regulation X requires transferor servicers to maintain policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives of timely transferring all information and documents in the possession or control of the servicer relating to a transferred mortgage loan to a transferee servicer in a form and manner that:

• Ensures the accuracy of the information and documents transferred, and

• Enables a transferee servicer to comply with the terms of the transferee servicer's obligations to the owner or assignee of the mortgage loan and applicable law. 14

Use of a uniform data standard like the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization (MISMO) standard would increase data compatibility and strengthen compliance across the servicing industry by fostering more consistency in the data fields used by servicers. The Bureau encourages servicers to adopt a common data standard and data dictionary to facilitate these goals.

Other practices that could contribute to compliance include having contracts that require transferors to provide all the necessary information and documents at loan boarding to a transferee servicer's systems. Necessary information and documents could include foundational information for servicing the loan, but not limited to, a unique identifier for each loan, the terms of the loan (including the rate and term), current unpaid principal balance (UPB) as of a specific date, information concerning any escrow accounts (including balances, distribution history, and future obligations), payment histories, the terms of any loss mitigation that was offered to a borrower under which the borrower is performing, and any other modifications or other information needed to adequately service the loan.

Certain information and documents present heightened compliance risk. For example, failure to transfer private mortgage insurance cancellation and mid-point dates may contribute to violations of the Homeowners Protection Act. 15 Likewise, loss mitigation-related documents, including incomplete applications and executed modification agreements are critical for compliance. Regulation X requires transferor servicers to maintain policies and procedures with respect to the transfer of any information reflecting the current status of discussions with a borrower regarding loss mitigation options, any agreements entered into with a borrower on a loss mitigation option, and any analysis done with respect to potential recovery from a non-performing mortgage loan, as appropriate. 16 Because borrowers may continue to provide loss mitigation-related documents and information to the transferor servicer after their loans have transferred, transferors must work with transferees to ensure that the new information and documents are transferred and that borrowers are not adversely affected. 17 A borrower that submits a facially complete or complete application to the transferor servicer after the transfer date has the same rights and protections that would have applied if the borrower had submitted the complete application to the transferee servicer. 18 An application that was facially complete under § 1024.41(c)(2)(iv) with respect to the transferor servicer remains facially complete under the transferee servicer as of the date it was facially complete with respect to the transferor servicer. And if an application was complete with respect to the transferor servicer, but is not complete with respect to the transferee servicer, the transferee servicer must treat the application as facially complete as of the date the application was complete with respect to the transferor servicer. 19

Appendix A provides examples of information and documents grouped by subject area which the Bureau intends to use to assess compliance with Regulation X. The appendix is provided as a guide and focuses on common data elements essential to the servicing of mortgage loans. Servicers may use the appendix to assess the baseline appropriateness of their transfer-related policies and procedures. Some listed documents and information may be not applicable to certain loans. Other loans may require documents and information not listed in Appendix A. The overall composition and complexity of a servicer's portfolio is important in determining whether its policies and procedures meet the objectives outlined in Regulation X. For example, servicers with very few adjustable rate mortgages might have relatively simple policies and procedures for ensuring documents and information related to interest rate adjustments are timely transferred and accounted for. And servicers with large default portfolios might have robust policies and procedures for ensuring that loss mitigation documents and information pertaining to defaulted accounts are timely transferred.

This Bulletin is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its supervisory authority under Regulation X and RESPA and reciting certain requirements of Regulation X and other Federal consumer financial laws applicable to servicing transfers. It is therefore exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). 20 Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this Bulletin does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the Bureau will submit a report containing this Bulletin and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to its applicability date. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this Bulletin as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Director of the Bureau, having reviewed and approved this document is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

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 the 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 would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0006 in the Federal Register (85 FR 3288; January 21, 2020), amending VOR Federal airways V-17, V-18, V-62, V-94, V-163, and V-568 in the vicinity of Glen Rose, TX, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2018-1028 in the Federal Register (85 FR 13731; March 10, 2020), amending VOR Federal airway V-18 by removing the airway segment between the Vulcan, AL, VORTAC and the Colliers, SC, VORTAC. That airway amendment was effective May 21, 2020, and is included in this rule.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) 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 VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the 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 VOR Federal airways V-17, V-18, V-62, V-94, V-163, and V-568. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC NAVAID has made this action necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

V-17: V-17 extends between the Brownsville, TX, VORTAC and the Goodland, KS, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC between the Waco, TX, VORTAC and the Millsap, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-18: V-18 extends between the Millsap, TX, VORTAC and the Vulcan, AL, VORTAC; and between the Colliers, SC, VORTAC and the Charleston, SC, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC between the Millsap, TX, VORTAC and the Cedar Creek, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-62: V-62 extends between the Gallup, NM, VORTAC and the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC between the Abilene, TX, VORTAC and the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-94: V-94 extends between the Blythe, CA, VORTAC and the Holly Springs, MS, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC between the Tuscola, TX, VOR/DME and the Cedar Creek, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-163: V-163 extends between the Matamoros, Mexico, VOR/DME and the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC between the Gooch Springs, TX, VORTAC and the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC is removed. Additionally, exclusionary language is added to reflect the airspace within Mexico is excluded. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-568: V-568 extends between the Corpus Christi, TX, VORTAC and the Wichita Falls, TX, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC between the Llano, TX, VORTAC and the Millsap, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted. There are no concurrent changes to other portions of the airway as was noted in the NPRM.

All radials in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 will only affect 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 of modifying VOR Federal airways V-17, V-18, V-62, V-94, V-163, and V-568 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Glen Rose, TX, VORTAC NAVAID qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

In order to ensure continuity of operations within the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) and among entities registered with DDTC pursuant to part 122 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), DDTC provides notice of the temporary suspension, modification, or exception to several ITAR provisions. These actions are being taken pursuant to ITAR § 126.2, which allows for the temporary suspension or modification of provisions of the ITAR, and ITAR § 126.3, which allows for exceptions to provisions of the ITAR. These actions are in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States. Further, they are warranted as a result of the exceptional and undue hardships and risks to safety caused by the public health emergency related to the SARS-COV2 pandemic. The President declared a national emergency on March 13, 2020, as a result of this public health crisis. 1

1. As of February 29, 2020, a temporary suspension, modification, and exception to the requirement in ITAR parts 122 and 129 to renew registration as a manufacturer, exporter, and/or broker and pay a fee on an annual basis by extending ITAR registrations with an expiration date of February 29, March 31, April 30, May 31, or June 30, 2020—for two (2) months from the original date of expiration.

2. As of March 13, 2020, a temporary suspension, modification, and exception to the limitations on the duration of ITAR licenses and agreements contained in ITAR parts 120 through 130, including but not necessarily limited to ITAR §§ 123.5(a), 123.21(a), and 129.6(e), to extend any license or agreement that expires between March 13, 2020 and May 31, 2020—for six (6) months from the original date of expiration so long as there is no change to the scope or value of the authorization and no Name/Address changes are required. This six (6) month extension is warranted in light of the unique challenges applicants face in the current environment when attempting to coordinate with U.S. and foreign business partners regarding the scope of applications.

3. As of March 13, 2020, a temporary suspension, modification, and exception to the requirement that a regular employee, for purposes of ITAR § 120.39(a)(2), work at the company's facilities, to allow the individual to work at a remote work location, so long as the individual is not located in Russia or a country listed in ITAR § 126.1. This suspension, modification, and exception shall terminate on July 31, 2020, unless otherwise extended in writing.

4. As of March 13, 2020, a temporary suspension, modification, and exception to authorize regular employees of licensed entities who are working remotely in a country not currently authorized by a technical assistance agreement, manufacturing license agreement, or exemption to send, receive, or access any technical data authorized for export, reexport, or retransfer to their employer via a technical assistance agreement, manufacturing license agreement, or exemption so long as the regular employee is not located in Russia or a country listed in ITAR § 126.1. This suspension, modification, and exception shall terminate on July 31, 2020, unless otherwise extended in writing.

I. Background

On October 16, 2019, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at 84 FR 55267, requesting comment on proposed amendments to 31 CFR part 208 (part 208), which implements the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3332 (Section 3332). Section 3332 generally requires that all Federal nontax payments be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT), unless waived by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary must ensure that individuals required to receive Federal payments by EFT have access to an account at a financial institution “at a reasonable cost” and with “the same consumer protections with respect to the account as other account holders at the same financial institution.” See 31 U.S.C. 3332(f), (i)(2). Direct deposit is the primary method used to make EFT Federal payments. We are updating part 208 to reflect the evolution of Fiscal Service's payment technologies and to eliminate obsolete ETA references and expired EFT waiver categories. The waiver categories that have not expired remain in place without change. We are adopting as final all of the amendments proposed in the NPRM.

Fiscal Service has had great success in reducing check payments, but still must print and mail more than 50 million checks each year. More than half of these are for non-benefit payments, especially tax payments. Over the years, Fiscal Service has implemented multiple solutions to facilitate electronic payments.

In conjunction with the 1998 publication of part 208, Fiscal Service developed the ETA, a low-cost account offered by participating financial institutions for those individuals who wish to receive their Federal payments by direct deposit. See Notice of Electronic Transfer Account Features, 64 FR 38510 (July 16, 1999). Fiscal Service determined to end the program in 2017 and as of September 2018 all ETA accounts were closed.

In 2008, Fiscal Service introduced the Direct Express® Debit MasterCard® card. The Direct Express card is a low-cost prepaid debit card account developed for Federal benefit recipients (initially, for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income payment recipients). In 2010, Fiscal Service amended part 208 to establish the Direct Express card as an account that meets the requirements of Section 3332(i), which ensures that payment recipients have access to an account at a reasonable cost and with the same consumer protections as other account holders at the financial institution that issues the card.

Since 2008, Fiscal Service has also sponsored another prepaid card account, the U.S. Debit Card, to support our efforts to reduce the number of non-benefit payments made by cash or check. The U.S. Debit Card program enables agencies to make Federal non-benefit payments to recipients through prepaid debit cards instead of through checks or cash. The accounts are issued, and the program is operated, by a financial institution designated as Fiscal Service's financial agent. Federal entities and programs use the U.S. Debit Card to make payments for a variety of purposes, including stipends, awards, grants, and travel reimbursements for local visitors and international guests.

In recent years, Fiscal Service has engaged in testing and developing payment methods to facilitate the electronic delivery of Federal non-benefit payments, in order to reduce check payments and provide more options for payment recipients. In particular, Fiscal Service is testing the delivery of payments to virtual accounts (which are accessed online or through a mobile device rather than a plastic card), as well as implementing capabilities to enable payment recipients to receive payments in real-time by providing a debit card number. The U.S. Debit Card program now includes this functionality.

Fiscal Service sought public comment on the proposed rule for 60 days to assist the agency in giving full consideration to the matters discussed in the proposed rule. We received comments from one company, Visa, Inc. Visa supported the proposed changes and suggested one clarification. We appreciate Visa's support of the changes and Fiscal Service's efforts to embrace innovative payment technologies.

Visa recommended clarifying the definition of “electronic funds transfer” to include disbursements to Treasury-sponsored accounts made through any electronic payment method, including but not limited to debit and credit networks, push payments, and mobile payments. Currently, Part 208 defines “electronic funds transfer” as a transfer “that is initiated through an electronic terminal, telephone, computer, or magnetic tape,” and gives examples of “Automated Clearing House transfers, Fedwire transfers, and transfers made at automated teller machines and point-of-sale terminals.” As Visa noted in its comment, the definition of “electronic funds transfer” is taken from the statute that Part 208 implements. See 31 U.S.C. 3332(j)(1). (Note that the definition is also substantially the same definition used in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. See 12 U.S.C. 1693a(7).)

We believe that departing from the statutory definition in the rule could cause confusion by implying that the regulation covers transfers that the statute does not. Accordingly, we are not revising the definition of “electronic funds transfer” in the final rule. However, disbursements to Treasury-sponsored accounts may be made using any kind of electronic funds transfer, including mobile payments, push payments and payment over debit and credit card networks, whether these payment methods are expressly referenced in the wording of the definition or not.

In the Final Rule we are adopting all of the amendments to part 208 that were proposed in the NPRM, as follows:

We are removing now-obsolete references to the ETA from the regulation. The ETA program ended in September 2018.

We are eliminating waiver provisions that have expired due to the passage of time. When part 208 was promulgated in 2010, it included a provision stating that individuals receiving Federal payments by check on March 1, 2011, could continue to do so through February 28, 2013. In addition, the rule provides that individuals who file claims for Federal benefits before March 1, 2011, and who request check payments when they file, may receive payments by check through February 28, 2013. Since the February 28, 2013 deadline has expired, these provisions no longer have any effect and there is no purpose in retaining them in the rule. All other waiver provisions remain unchanged.

We are amending the definition of “Federal payment” for purposes of part 208 to include payments made under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to support the delivery of tax payments via Treasury-sponsored accounts. Tax payments continue to be excluded from the electronic payment mandate that applies to other Federal payments, consistent with Section 3332. However, the definitional change provides flexibility to offer taxpayers Treasury-sponsored accounts as an electronic payment alternative for the receipt of tax payments on a voluntary basis.

Lastly, we are revising part 208 to provide for the use of other “Treasury-sponsored accounts” for the delivery of Federal payments. The revisions provide flexibility to implement new methods of making payments, with the ultimate goal of reducing check payments, modernizing Fiscal Service's payment capabilities, and offering payment recipients electronic alternatives to checks or direct deposit to a traditional bank account. We are not changing the regulatory treatment of Direct Express accounts or making any changes to the Direct Express program. The concept of Treasury-sponsored accounts and the features of the U.S. Debit Card program are discussed immediately below.

In order to support existing and emerging methods of paying individuals, Fiscal Service is adding a new term, “Treasury-sponsored account,” to the regulation. A Treasury-sponsored account is defined as an account that a Treasury-designated financial agent establishes and administers for an individual for the disbursement of Federal payments, upon terms and conditions that Treasury considers appropriate. The term “Treasury-sponsored account” includes, but is not limited to, Direct Express and U.S. Debit Cards. Although Fiscal Service does not have current plans to develop Treasury-sponsored accounts other than Direct Express and U.S. Debit Cards, this terminology provides flexibility for the future.

Currently the regulation only addresses the use of accounts established by financial agents to accomplish disbursement of benefit payments and accounts established for disaster victims. The final rule broadens the uses of accounts established by financial agents for disbursement purposes, including to disburse not just benefit payments but also miscellaneous, vendor, expense reimbursement and tax payments. Treasury-sponsored accounts are required to be made available at a reasonable cost and with the same consumer protections provided to other account holders at the financial institution, thereby meeting the requirements of Section 3332.

Historically, Fiscal Service structured the U.S. Debit Card program as a conventional general purpose prepaid card program, which provides payment recipients with access to their funds via a plastic card. Recently, Fiscal Service expanded the U.S. Debit Card program to include a new virtual account option, which allows payment recipients to establish a prepaid account accessible through their mobile devices or online without the use of a plastic card. Payment recipients who open a virtual U.S. Debit Card account have the capability to move their funds in real-time through Direct to Debit functionality, which allows the cardholder to transfer funds on the basis of a debit card number. They may also opt to have a plastic U.S. Debit Card to access funds in the account if they so choose.

In the NPRM, Fiscal Service described the features and fees of the U.S. Debit Card and requested comment on our view that the U.S. Debit Card meets the statutory “reasonable cost” and “same consumer protection” requirements of Section 3332. One comment was received in support of that view. No comments were received in opposition of that view.

As discussed in the NPRM, a 2014 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that prepaid cardholders pay, on average, $11 per month in fees. Some of the fees included in that amount are monthly, account maintenance, IVR and ATM balance inquiry, ATM withdrawal, PIN and signature transaction, and declined transaction fees. See General Purpose Reloadable Cards: Penetration, Use, Fees and Fraud Risks, The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, RWP 14-01, February 2017. In contrast, the U.S. Debit Card carries no monthly fee and can be used at no cost in many cases. There are no fees for cardholders to sign up for or activate the card; receive deposits; make purchases at retail locations, online or by telephone; or get cash at retail locations and financial institutions. Cardholders can check their balances and sign up for alerts via the mobile app, text, telephone or email. If desired, a cardholder may receive a monthly paper statement. There are no fees for declined transactions. Cardholders may close their card account at any time without a fee.

Cardholders may make purchases anywhere VISA® is accepted, including millions of retail locations worldwide, online, or by telephone. Similarly, cardholders may make unlimited free cash withdrawals and check their account balances at Allpoint ATMs as well as one free out-of-network ATM cash withdrawal for every Federal payment the cardholder receives. There are also other means by which cardholders may access their funds for free. Cardholders can transfer funds for free to a bank account and have free use of Money Network TM checks to access their funds. The free services and minimal fees are fully disclosed in materials that are provided to new U.S. Debit Card account holders, as shown in the following chart:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On November 20, 2019 (84 FR 64035), the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they comply with the relevant CAA requirements. We also proposed to find that the rule revisions fulfill commitments made by the District and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) necessary for the EPA to convert the partial conditional approval of the District's RACT demonstrations for the 1997 8-hr ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS (also referred to as the 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs) with respect to Rules 461, 462, and 463 (83 FR 5921, February 12, 2018), to a full approval. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During the comment period, we received seventeen anonymous comments. Ten commenters supported EPA's proposal. Two commenters discussed the impacts of air pollution generally, and the importance of clean air and regulating emissions from gasoline in the Mojave Desert, without expressing either support or opposition to the EPA's proposal. We thank these commenters for their input.

The issues raised by the five remaining commenters are described below, followed by the EPA's response. One commenter asked why the EPA proposed to enforce the updated regulations only in the Mojave Desert, and not in the remainder of the United States, and two more wrote that although the proposed rule is a “great” revision to the Mojave AQMD rules, “the EPA needs to use their power of regulating emission sources under the Clean Air Act on a wider scope of the United States.” The EPA notes that the Clean Air Act establishes a system of cooperative federalism, in which the federal government sets air quality standards, and the states have the responsibility to develop a plan “which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such standards. 1 The states then submit these State Implementation Plans to the EPA. Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA “shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements” of the Act. In this instance, the MDAQMD has modified its local rules, and CARB has submitted these changes as a State Implementation Plan revision. These rules are applicable only within the District. The EPA does not have the authority to expand the applicability of these rules beyond the boundaries of the MDAQMD. Because the EPA proposed to determine that the SIP submission meets the requirements of the Act applicable to a SIP revision, and these commenters have not suggested that the submittal does not meet the necessary requirements for approval, the comments have not changed the EPA's view on the approvability of the submitted rules.

Another commenter wrote that “[w]hen environmental issues grow worse, it should not be an appropriate action to approve what is already in place rather than creating measures to improve state work against local pollutants.” The EPA notes that as ozone pollution worsens in a nonattainment area, the area can be reclassified, resulting in additional requirements becoming applicable under the Act. 2 In its proposal, the EPA proposed to find that the submitted rules met the stringency requirements currently applicable within the MDAQMD. The commenter has not suggested that the submission does not meet the requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the comment has not changed the EPA's view on the approvability of the submitted rules. To the extent that the commenter suggests that the EPA should create its own pollution control measures, any such request is outside the scope of the current action.

One commenter expressed concerns about the impacts of pollution, and wrote that “organic compounds should be considered a pollution and the polluter should be charged with either a fine or a criminal offense.” In its proposal the EPA proposed to find that the submitted rules met the SIP criteria for stringency and enforceability. This means that the rules as submitted are as stringent as the Act requires, and can be effectively enforced in the event of a violation. Under the Act, a violation of a SIP rule can be enforced by the EPA, resulting in penalties, injunctive relief, and in some instances, criminal penalties. 3 Members of the public may also bring citizen suits to enforce emission standards or limitations under the Act. 4 Accordingly, the enforcement options mentioned by the commenter may be available to address those who violate the rule. To the extent that the commenter suggests that all emissions of organic compounds should lead to a fine or a criminal offense, the EPA does not agree. The EPA proposed to find that the submitted rules met the stringency requirements of the Act, including the requirement to implement RACT. The commenter has not indicated that the rules do not meet the requirements of the Act.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP. The EPA is also converting the partial conditional approval of the District's 2006 and 2015 RACT SIPs with respect to Rules 461, 462 and 463 into a full approval.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the MDAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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, the 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 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO 2 NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as “infrastructure SIPs,” are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibility under the CAA. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The content of the changes in such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already contains. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).

On September 18, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) submitted a revision to the Florida SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. EPA is approving FDEP's September 18, 2018, SIP submission because the State demonstrated that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in any other state. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS for Florida are addressed in separate rulemakings. 1

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 10, 2020 (85 FR 7480), EPA proposed to approve Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS (“Florida NPRM”). The details of the SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's action is explained in the Florida NPRM. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before March 11, 2020.

EPA received five sets of adverse comments from anonymous commenters (collectively referred to as the “Commenter”). These comments are included in the docket for this final action. EPA has summarized the comments and provided responses below.

Comment 1: The Commenter states that EPA has not demonstrated that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in any other state. The Commenter claims this is “best evidenced” in Escambia County, Alabama, which borders the Florida panhandle counties of Escambia  2 and Santa Rosa. As summarized below, the Commenter raises specific concerns regarding several aspects of EPA's analysis of Florida's SIP revision as it relates to interstate transport of SO 2 emissions into Alabama.

Comment 1.a: The Commenter quotes the following statement from the Florida NPRM: “Regarding three out-of-state DRR  3 sources within 50 km  4 of the Florida border which are located in Alabama, the information available to the Agency does not indicate there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in Alabama to which Florida sources could contribute.” The Commenter then asserts that the opposite is also true—that the available information does not indicate that there are no violations of the NAAQS.

Comment 1.b: The Commenter notes that Escambia County is currently designated unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS and claims that EPA has not provided information to change this designation, and therefore should not approve the September 18, 2018, Florida SIP submission because the State may be contributing to a NAAQS violation in that county. The Commenter states that the absence of evidence of a violation does not mean that there is no violation of the NAAQS, which is why EPA designated the county as unclassifiable, and that the SIP revision should not be approved until EPA or Florida demonstrates that there is no violation. The Commenter then asserts that without evidence that there is not a NAAQS violation in Escambia County, EPA cannot say that Florida is not contributing to a downwind NAAQS violation or is not interfering with maintenance in Escambia County and further asserts that EPA cannot approve Florida's SIP revision until the “NAAQS status” of that county is resolved.

Comment 1.c: The Commenter notes that, contrary to EPA's statement in the notice, Table 5 in the Florida NPRM does not show a decline in SO 2 emissions from 2012 to 2017/2018 for the Alabama sources listed therein. The Commenter points out that if the reference is to Table 6, there is a decrease in emissions relative to 2012 and an increase in emissions relative to 2017. The Commenter states that EPA should explain why there is an upward trend and include 2019 emissions to be more complete.

Comment 1.d: The Commenter references “similar concerns” that it raised regarding EPA's December 31, 2019, NPRM (84 FR 72278) (“Alabama NPRM”) proposing to approve Alabama's good neighbor SIP revision for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS and asks that EPA consider those comments in evaluating the Florida NPRM. 5 The Commenter then broadly restates some of these comments as summarized below. 6

The Commenter refers to its comments on the Alabama NPRM regarding the unmodeled flare emissions at the Escambia Operating Company—Big Escambia Creek Plant (Big Escambia) facility in Alabama. 7 With respect to the Florida SIP submission, the Commenter urges EPA or the state to correct the modeling for Big Escambia to account for missing emissions from a flare at the facility.

The Commenter also refers to its comments on the Alabama NPRM regarding the need for additional modeling receptors in the unmodeled area in Florida between a Florida source, Breitburn Operating, L.P. (Breitburn), and Big Escambia. 8 With respect to the Florida NPRM, the Commenter urges EPA or the state to include more receptors in the modeling for Big Escambia and references Breitburn in its discussion noting that EPA is proposing to approve Florida's SIP revision but does not have evidence that there is not a NAAQS violation in Escambia County.

Comment 1.e: The Commenter believes that, in the absence of air quality monitors, the best way to assess air quality is through modeling. The Commenter predicts that EPA will not model in response to the comments but will offer some rationale for why omitting the flare emissions at Big Escambia and leaving a gap in the receptor grid between Breitburn and Big Escambia are a sufficient and conservative substitute for modeling. The Commenter conducted simple modeling runs via AERSCREEN  9 and claims that the results show that SO 2 emissions are being transported across state lines from Alabama into Florida and Florida into Alabama based on simulations from Big Escambia and Breitburn. The Commenter acknowledges that AERSCREEN is a “simple screening model” which is “not capable or sophisticated enough to unequivocally answer the question of whether there are NAAQS violations around Breitburn (particularly in the unmodeled receptor gap) in Florida, or at the unclassifiable receptors in Escambia County, Alabama, or whether the prong 1 and prong 2 requirements of both Alabama and Florida have been satisfied.” The Commenter explains that it did not submit the modeling results due to only being able to estimate the hourly emissions and release characteristics of the flare at Big Escambia, which the Commenter believes EPA would use to discredit the results as invalid. The Commenter asks why EPA does not “run the modeling properly instead of making unsubstantiated technical assumptions that run counter to why modeling is used in the first place?” The Commenter notes that EPA could provide AERSCREEN runs to supplement the Agency's weight of evidence (WOE) and to evaluate the potential for transport issues “rather than speculating on what the concentrations might look like in the absence of adequate modeling.”

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's claim that EPA has not demonstrated that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA continues to believe that the WOE approach applied in the NPRM provides a sufficient technical justification for approving Florida's transport SIP. EPA's WOE analysis evaluated the following factors: (1) Potential ambient air quality impacts of SO 2 emissions from certain facilities in Florida on neighboring states based on available air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO 2 emissions from Florida sources; (3) SO 2 ambient air quality for Florida and neighboring states; (4) SIP-approved Florida regulations that address SO 2 emissions; and (5) federal regulations that reduce SO 2 emissions at Florida sources. EPA's response to the Commenter's specific concerns are outlined below.

Response 1.a: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that the available information “does not indicate that there are no violations of the NAAQS.” EPA's statement regarding the three out-of-state DRR sources within 50 km of Florida (Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals—LeMoyne Site (AkzoNobel); Alabama Power Company—James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant (Plant Barry); and Big Escambia) cited by the Commenter, and EPA's determination that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in another state, is based on EPA's WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision.

EPA's WOE evaluation described in Response 1 includes the information summarized in Sections III.C.1.b (Big Escambia) and III.C.2.b (Plant Barry and AkzoNobel) of the Florida NPRM. Although Plant Barry and AkzoNobel are not located in Escambia County, Alabama, EPA addresses these facilities in this response.

Regarding AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, these sources are both located in Mobile County, Alabama, approximately 41 km and 36 km from the Florida border, respectively. For these sources, EPA evaluated 2017 SO 2 emissions data along with the distances to the closest neighboring state's non-DRR sources emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO 2 . Table 5 in the Florida NPRM shows that the distances between each facility and the nearest state's source to each facility which emits over 100 tpy of SO 2 exceed 50 km, the distance threshold Florida used to reflect the transport properties of SO 2 . 10 Further, the closest sources in another state to AkzoNobel and Plant Barry are located in Mississippi. Due to the magnitude of their SO 2 emissions and the distance to the facilities in Alabama, EPA believes that there are no Florida sources which emit SO 2 within 50 km of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry which could interact with SO 2 emissions from these Alabama sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama. In addition, EPA evaluated SO 2 emissions trends for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry in the Florida NPRM and assessed more recent SO 2 emissions data that has become available for Plant Barry for 2019. See Response 1.c. for additional information on the emissions data for these sources.

EPA also evaluated data from the Agency's Air Quality System (AQS)  11 from the SO 2 monitors in the surrounding areas of AkzoNobel and Plant Barry. The only monitor within 50 km of these sources is located in Mobile County, Alabama (AQS ID: 01-097-0003), and is approximately 23 km from AkzoNobel. The 2018 design value (DV)  12 for this monitor is 11 ppb. As stated in the Florida NPRM, EPA believes that the information evaluated for AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, as part of the Agency's WOE analysis, support the Agency's conclusion that sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in a nearby state.

Regarding Big Escambia, which is located approximately 8 km from the Florida border, EPA considered the supplemental information and modeling results provided by ADEM. 13 The modeling included Breitburn, the nearest SO 2 source in Florida to Big Escambia, which is located less than 5 km from the Alabama-Florida border. As noted in the Florida NPRM and Response 1.d, Florida's submittal indicates that Breitburn's 2017 SO 2 emissions are 1,491 tons. Due to its proximity to Big Escambia, Alabama's modeling analysis included Breitburn as a modeled nearby source using a conservative maximum potential-to-emit emissions rate of 2,181 pounds per hour (lb/hr) (9,553 tpy). 14 This modeling indicates that the impact of SO 2 emissions from Breitburn do not result in Alabama's air quality exceeding the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. EPA believes that the modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn's SO 2 impacts at locations in Alabama near the Alabama-Florida border because the Big Escambia modeling used allowable emissions of SO 2 for Breitburn, which are approximately 6.4 times higher than Breitburn's actual annual SO 2 emissions for 2017 (1,491 tpy). In addition, as shown in the Florida NPRM, Breitburn's 2014-2018 emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has consistently operated well below its permitted allowable emission rate. Thus, EPA continues to believe that Breitburn's actual contribution to SO 2 concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling, which provides further assurances that air quality in the portion of Alabama covered in the modeling grid would remain below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS.

Response 1.b: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. EPA's determination that Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in another state is not reliant on Escambia County's unclassifiable designation. As stated in Response 1.a, this determination is based on a WOE analysis that includes information regarding Florida SO 2 emission sources and surrounding states' sources, including sources in Escambia County, Alabama. EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the NPRM, which includes as one of several factors the absence of any information demonstrating a potential violation in Alabama, is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states.

Response 1.c: EPA acknowledges that the quoted sentence from the Florida NPRM should have referenced Table 6 instead of Table 5. Table 6 provides annual SO 2 emissions for two Alabama sources, AkzoNobel and Plant Barry, for the years 2012-2017 (AkzoNobel) and 2012-2018 (Plant Barry).

Regarding the comment that there is an increase in SO 2 emissions relative to 2017, annual SO 2 emissions increased at Plant Barry from 4,218 tons in 2017 to 5,257 tons in 2018. SO 2 emissions data are now available from Plant Barry for 2019. The data show that SO 2 emissions from Plant Barry decreased by 1,762 tons from 2018 to 2019 (from 5,257 tons in 2018 down to 3,495 tons in 2019). Thus, the 2019 SO 2 emissions data for Plant Barry demonstrates there is not a continued upward trend in emissions at this facility as the commenter suggests.

Emissions of SO 2 at AkzoNobel increased relative to the year 2014 (2,320 tons) in 2015 (3,587 tons) and 2016 (3,646 tons) but decreased in 2017 (2,201 tons) to below 2014 levels. Emissions data remain unavailable from AkzoNobel for 2018 or 2019. The decrease in emissions for AkzoNobel reported in 2017 demonstrate that there is not a continued upward trend in emissions at this facility as the Commenter suggests.

EPA believes that the data in Table 6 of the NPRM, as supplemented by the 2019 SO 2 emissions data for Plant Barry provided in this response, and the changes in controls or operations at these two sources described in the NPRM, support the Agency's conclusion that sources in Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in a nearby state.

Response 1.d: The Commenter's broad request that EPA consider all of its comments on the Alabama NPRM in this action on Florida's SIP revision is not a valid comment. Merely referring to a comment presented elsewhere does not provide EPA with sufficient information to evaluate that comment in the context of this action. Therefore, EPA is only responding to the comments from the Alabama NPRM that are restated by the Commenter in the context of the Florida NPRM.

The Commenter does not explain the relevance of its comment on the Alabama NPRM concerning flare emissions from Big Escambia to the transport of SO 2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. EPA's evaluation of the flare characteristics in the Alabama NPRM and final rule relate specifically to the transport of SO 2 emissions from Alabama into Florida, and thus, does not directly relate to the evaluation of Florida's SIP revision regarding the transport of SO 2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. Regarding the influence of Big Escambia's flare emissions on Escambia County when impacts from Florida are factored in, EPA has no evidence to suggest that the emissions from Breitburn in Florida, when combined with the SO 2 emissions at Big Escambia, including the flare emissions, will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in Alabama.

The Commenter does not explain the relevance of its comment on the Alabama NPRM concerning the receptor grid to the transport of SO 2 emissions from Florida into Alabama. Regarding the transport of SO 2 emissions from Florida into Alabama, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the receptor grid needs to be expanded to include modeling receptors to cover the unmodeled area between Breitburn  15 and Big Escambia before EPA can approve Florida's SIP submittal. Modeling this area in Florida is not relevant to whether Florida will contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in Alabama. Regarding an assessment of Breitburn's impacts in Alabama, Alabama's modeling analysis includes Breitburn as a modeled source due to its proximity to Big Escambia. This modeling indicates that the impact of SO 2 emissions from Breitburn do not result in Alabama's air quality exceeding the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. EPA continues to believe that the modeling provides a conservative estimate of Breitburn's SO 2 impacts at locations in Alabama because the Big Escambia modeling used allowable emissions of SO 2 for Breitburn, which are approximately 6.4 times Breitburn's actual SO 2 emissions for 2017 (9,533 tons/1,491 tons = 6.4). Also as noted in the Florida NPRM, Breitburn's 2014-2018 emissions profile demonstrates that Breitburn has consistently operated well below its permitted allowable emission rate. Thus, Breitburn's actual impact on SO 2 concentrations in Alabama would likely be much less than the predicted concentrations in the Big Escambia modeling.

EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the Florida NPRM is adequate to determine the potential downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states and that the inclusion of Breitburn (at its allowable emission levels) indicates that air quality at the Alabama-Florida border is likely characterized conservatively. Thus, EPA finds that SO 2 emissions from Breitburn will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in Alabama.

Response 1.e: Regarding the Commenter's suggestion that EPA should rely on its own resources and expertise to model whether or not Florida sources significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in Escambia County, Alabama, EPA does not believe that the issues identified by the Commenter related to the Big Escambia modeling invalidate consideration of the modeling for transport purposes as part of a WOE analysis. EPA does not believe that modeling is required in all cases under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate good neighbor obligations, particularly where other available information can be used to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the potential for downwind impacts from upwind state emission sources. Here, EPA has evaluated a number of different factors in a WOE analysis based on available information, which includes the available modeling of Big Escambia, and found no basis to conclude that Florida emissions will have an adverse impact on downwind states. Therefore, EPA has concluded that Florida emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in neighboring states. Therefore, as stated in our response to Comment 1.a, EPA continues to believe that the WOE analysis provided in the Florida NPRM is adequate to evaluate the potential downwind impact from Florida to neighboring states.

Regarding AERSCREEN, without the modeling input and output data used and produced by the Commenter, EPA cannot evaluate the modeling results to which the Commenter refers showing that there is transport of SO 2 from Alabama into Florida and Florida into Alabama. Further, as the Commenter acknowledges, AERSCREEN has limitations in terms of making any definitive assessments. AERSCREEN is intended to produce pollutant concentration estimates that are conservative, for screening purposes, relative to refined modeling with AERMOD. AERSCREEN conservatively assumes that every receptor is located along the plume centerline (area of highest concentration across the plume) and worst-case meteorological conditions. Thus, the Commenter's unsupported assertions regarding the results of its AERSCREEN runs do not provide a basis for the EPA to reconsider its WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision.

As noted earlier, the available information indicates that modeling and emissions data provide a conservative estimate of the predicted SO 2 impacts in Alabama that may be due to transport of SO 2 from Florida sources. EPA continues to believe that the Agency's WOE analysis of Florida's SIP revision, as supplemented with additional data discussed in the Florida NPRM, provides a sufficient basis for the Agency's assessment as to whether sources in Florida will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in a nearby state.

Comment 2: The Commenter notes that EPA consistently uses the words “will not” when discussing the potential for significant contribution or interference with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS and asks why EPA is not using the present tense when evaluating the SIP submission from Florida. The Commenter asks whether EPA thinks a particular source is currently contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of another state's NAAQS, and if so, asserts that EPA must redo its evaluation for the present tense and repropose.

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the Agency must repropose using the present tense. EPA's use of the phrase “will not” is consistent with the verb tense in the good neighbor provision of the CAA, which requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that “will” contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Accordingly, EPA's evaluation and conclusion are consistent with the statutory standard in the good neighbor provision. In the NPRM, EPA evaluated data regarding historic, current, and future source activity and air quality to determine whether emissions from Florida are likely to be impacting downwind air quality, either presently or in the future, and are thus in violation of the good neighbor provision. EPA's WOE analysis of this information did not find any indication that such an impact was likely occuring currently or would be likely to occur in the future. Accordingly, EPA concluded that emissions from Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in any other state.

Comment 3 : The Commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove Florida's SIP submission because the DRR modeling EPA relies on inappropriate receptor grids. Specifically, the Commenter states that “one of those geometries was not appropriate for many regions in Florida, including the Gulf of Mexico.” The Commenter claims that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) utilizes “this same SAU modeling” and that EPA never requested or solicited input from NOAA about how EPA might improve its monitoring and forecasting of SO 2 emissions in Florida. In addition, the Commenter believes that EPA should also disapprove the SIP submission “because the AER uses `worst case' grid cells for SO 2 emissions measurements in Figure 3, which are also the grid cells used by the EPA in its AER standard.” The Commenter states that EPA should “reassess the grid cells used in the DRR modeling for a more refined receptor grid in areas beyond the state's borders.”

Response 3: It is unclear how the comment relates to EPA's proposal. As the comment may broadly relate to the DRR modeling referenced in sections III.C.1.a and III.C.1.b of the Florida NPRM and to the receptor grids used in that modeling, EPA believes that the modeling results support EPA's WOE determination as discussed in that notice and in Response 1.d, above. EPA is unable to respond any further because the Commenter did not explain, and the Agency does not understand, the meaning of the terms “geometries,” “SAU modeling,” or “AER,” in this context, and despite the Commenter's reference to “Figure 3,” the Florida NPRM does not contain any figures.

Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve the SIP revision because it is inconsistent with “Florida's Clean Air Act.” The Commenter claims that EPA's proposed determination confirms that Florida does not have a “meaningful permitting process for the transportation of SO 2 ” out of Florida, because the State has not established a procedure for a “subject air-quality permit application to be transferred to the federal permit authority.” The Commenter also claims that the proposal is inconsistent with Florida's “administrative procedures for approval of the transport of pollutants that are of significant public health concern.”

Response 4: It is unclear how the comment relates to EPA's proposal. The Commenter has not explained how “Florida's Clean Air Act” and the State's administrative procedures are relevant to this rulemaking or provided any basis for its assertion that the State must establish a procedure for a “subject air-quality permit application to be transferred to the federal permit authority” before EPA can approve the SIP revision as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). To the extent that the Commenter may be referring to EPA's discussion of Florida's SIP-approved permitting programs in section III.C.4 of the Florida NPRM, EPA reiterates its position that Florida's major and minor new source review rules are designed to ensure that SO 2 emissions due to major modifications at existing major stationary sources, modifications at minor stationary sources, and the construction of new major and minor sources subject to these rules will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in neighboring states.

Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA should disapprove Florida's SIP revision because it “will negatively affect the provision of electricity to residential customers in the region.” According to the Commenter, the “two most active engines in SO 2 production are burned in utility equipment, and that equipment now accounts for the majority of production” and “EPA argues that reversing the decision would trigger an emergency rulemaking and delay the inevitable phase-out of vehicles that emit emissions.” The Commenter believes that it “would also raise costs and delay purchases, ultimately raising the cost of electricity, which would result in higher electric rates for consumers and businesses.” The Commenter also claims that EPA should disapprove the SIP revision because of the “large short-term costs of complying with an additional facility and business planning requirements and because of the adverse effect of a lawsuit on the SO 2 manufacturers and the health and welfare of the general public.”

Response 5: EPA disagrees that approval of Florida's SIP revision will negatively affect the provision of electricity to residential customers or raise the cost of electricity. EPA's action does not create any new regulatory requirements nor does it revise any regulations or source-specific permits. Therefore, it does not impact the electric utility sector. Regarding the statements concerning a lawsuit and the reversal of an EPA decision that would trigger an emergency rulemaking, EPA cannot provide a substantive response because it is unclear what decision and lawsuit the Commenter is referencing or how they relate to Florida's good neighbor SIP revision.

EPA is approving Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP submission as demonstrating that emissions from Florida will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS in another state.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 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 CAA. 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 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 CAA; 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).

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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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).

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

The EPA is approving the removal of 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-2.310, Control of Emissions from the Application of Automotive Underbody Deadeners, from the Missouri SIP. As explained in detail in the EPA's proposed rule, Missouri has demonstrated that removal of 10 CSR 10-2.310 will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress  1 or any other applicable requirement of the CAA because the single source subject to the rule has permanently ceased operations and removal of the rule will not cause VOC emissions to increase. 85 FR 8230, February 13, 2020. Therefore the EPA is finalizing its proposal to remove 10 CSR 10-2.310 from the SIP.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from February 28, 2018, to April 5, 2018 and received five comments from the EPA that related to Missouri's lack of an adequate demonstration that the rule could be removed from the SIP in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA. Missouri's May 22, 2019 letter addressed the EPA's comments. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened February 13, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on March 16, 2020. During this period, the EPA received three comments. Two comments were not substantive and do not require a response from the EPA. The remaining comment is addressed in this document.

Comment: How has the EPA confirmed that the facility that was subject to this rule is decommissioned and is no longer subject to 10 CSR 10-2.310?

Response: The EPA confirmed that the facility subject to this rule was decommissioned based on a publicly available source of information that confirms that General Motors no longer owns the automotive manufacturing facility. EPA has concluded that General Motors is no longer subject to 10 CSR 10-2.310. A copy of the August 2000 remedial action report in support of this statement is added to the docket.

The EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's request to remove 10 CSR 10-2.310 from the SIP.

In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulation from the Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; 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).

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 24, 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)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it means the EPA.

The Wallula area was designated nonattainment for the 24-hour PM 10 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and classified as a Moderate area upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted a Moderate area attainment plan for the Wallula area on November 13, 1991, and a Serious area plan on November 30, 2004. The EPA acted on the plans on January 27, 1997 and May 2, 2005, respectively (62 FR 3800 and 83 FR 22597). During the planning process, the EPA determined that the area attained the PM 10 NAAQS based on 1999 through 2001 air quality monitoring data (67 FR 64815, October 22, 2002).

The PM 10 emissions inventory for the Wallula area has remained relatively consistent over time, with agricultural dust and point sources contributing the bulk of anthropogenic impact within the area. As discussed in more detail in the proposal and later in this preamble, high wind events carrying dust from both within and outside the Wallula area play a significant role on days that exceed the PM 10 NAAQS. On-road motor vehicles make up only approximately 1% of the overall inventory. The transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.109(f) allows areas to forego establishment of motor vehicle emissions budgets where it is demonstrated that the regional motor vehicle emissions for a particular pollutant or precursor are an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem in an area. The EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance determinations may be found in the July 1, 2004, revision to the Transportation Conformity Rule (69 FR 40004). As provided in 40 CFR 93.109(f), the general criteria for insignificance determinations are based on a number of factors, including the percentage of motor vehicle emissions in the context of the total SIP inventory; the current state of air quality as determined by monitoring data for the relevant NAAQS; the absence of SIP motor vehicle control measures; and the historical trends and future projections of the growth of motor vehicle emissions in the area. Using these regulatory criteria, the EPA granted Washington's request for an exemption from conducting a regional emissions analysis for transportation conformity because motor vehicles were an insignificant source of PM 10 emissions (70 FR 5085, 5092, February 1, 2005 (proposed action); 70 FR 22597, May 2, 2005 (final action)).

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), specific exceedances due to natural events, such as unusually high winds, may be discounted or excluded entirely from decisions regarding an area's air quality status in appropriate circumstances. From 1996 to 2007, EPA's Natural Events Policy  1 governed the process by which states could request exclusion of monitored values that exceeded the NAAQS due to “natural events” in making attainment determinations. As part of the EPA's finding of attainment for the Wallula area in 2002, the EPA determined that all exceedances that occurred in 1999 through 2001 qualified as high wind natural events under the EPA's Natural Events Policy. (67 FR 64815, October 22, 2002).

Subsequently, Ecology conducted a final review of high wind natural events for the area. Ecology found that there had been nine reported PM 10 exceedances in the Wallula area since January 1, 1995, and all but one was reasonably attributed to dust raised by unusually high winds. 2 On March 29, 2005, Ecology submitted the state's plan to maintain the PM 10 NAAQS in the Wallula area for 10 years, in accordance with section 175A of the CAA, and requested that the EPA redesignate the Wallula area to attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS. The EPA approved Ecology's submitted maintenance plan and redesignation request on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50212).

On November 22, 2019, Ecology submitted a maintenance plan to cover the second 10-year maintenance period, asserting that existing control measures were adequate to maintain the PM 10 NAAQS, after excluding specific exceptional events documented in the submission. On December 20, 2019, we proposed to approve the second 10-year maintenance plan as satisfying the requirements of section 175A of the CAA (84 FR 70130).

The public comment period for our proposed rule ended on January 21, 2020. We received one comment letter from the J.R. Simplot Company (Simplot), the owner and operator of the Simplot Feeders cattle feedlot, a facility located in the Wallula area and identified in the state's second 10-year maintenance plan. The comment letter generally supported approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Wallula area. However, Simplot's letter also requested clarification on the following three issues: The feedlot Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), the emissions inventory, and the projected future design value concentrations used in the maintenance demonstration.

Comment 1: “Simplot offers clarifications to EPA's summary of the FDCP provided in the FR notice (84 FR 70132). Simplot's FDCP does not `prevent dust from any fugitive or point source from crossing the Simplot property line,' nor does it `require road dust suppression, better staff training, etc.' The FDCP meets the WAC requirements for fugitive dust and `fall-out' and identifies best management practices (BMPs) that have been found to be the most effective in minimizing fugitive dust emissions from the facility. Examples of those BMPs that are implemented as appropriate include water application to pens and roads, application of dust suppression on facility roads, as well as pen cleaning and maintenance. The FDCP also identifies the training provided to facility employees who have responsibility with implementing BMPs.”

Response 1: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The Simplot Feeders' cattle feedlot is subject to a federally-enforceable new source review permit (Approval Order No. 18AQ-E018, issued March 5, 2018) that specifically requires Simplot to have and implement a fugitive dust control plan. Specifically, facility-wide permit condition 2.2.1. states, “During operation of the feedlot, Simplot shall follow the fugitive dust control plan submitted to Ecology, and modified annually in accordance with the facility Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Fugitive dust control measures shall be sufficient to prevent dust from any fugitive or point sources from crossing the Simplot property line.” Additionally, permit condition 9 states, “A site-specific O&M manual for the hay processing filters, any feedlot sprinklers or cross fencing systems or other feedlot Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring equipment, monitoring procedures, and monitoring schedules for the feedlot control (BMPs) measures shall be developed and followed . . . The O&M manual shall at a minimum include: . . .9.4 The current Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP).” Simplot's FDCP, in turn, specifically provides for road dust suppression, better staff training, daily observations, and daily adaptive best management practices to control fugitive dust. 3 Therefore, the language in the proposal accurately reflects Simplot's legal obligations with respect to Simplot's FDCP and no clarification is required.

Comment 2: “Simplot appreciates EPA's recognition that Ecology's revised emission factor for the cattle feedlots is a conservative approach (84 FR 70132); however, Simplot believes use of Ecology's updated emission factor mischaracterizes the change in emissions between baseline years presented in the SIP.

Specifically, Ecology failed to provide context regarding the effect of the new emission factor with respect to the 2002 emission inventory in the SIP. During the public comment period of the draft SIP, Simplot provided comments to Ecology (Attachment 2) that the activity levels, including cattle headcount was higher at the feedlot in 2002 than in 2014. As such, the relative emissions for the feedlot were higher in 2002 than in 2014. Simplot identified that applying the updated emission factor to the 2002 data would show a relative decrease rather than the increase Ecology presented in Table 7 of the SIP.”

Response 2: Simplot's clarification is noted. However, we believe this issue was already adequately addressed in our proposed rulemaking when we stated, “The overall source mix and emissions levels are generally consistent with the 2002 attainment emissions inventory contained in the first 10-year maintenance plan. While there has been some increase in emissions activity since 2002, Ecology explained and the EPA verified that much of the difference between the 2002 and 2014 inventories is due to revised emissions inventory methodology. For example, Ecology revised the emissions factor for cattle feedlots by increasing it approximately eightfold, a conservative approach.” See page 70131.

We note two factors related to Simplot's comment. First, it is not unusual for emissions inventory methodologies or emissions factors to change over time at the state or federal level with additional research or source test data. Second, the conservative methodology used by Ecology yielded a 2025 projected design value concentration of 145 μg/m 3 , below the 150 μg/m 3 threshold for demonstrating continued attainment the PM 10 NAAQS in the Wallula area. Any argument for using a less conservative approach, yielding a lower projected design value concentration, would therefore not change the EPA's approval of Ecology's maintenance demonstration because the worst-case scenario is already below 150 μg/m 3 .

Comment 3: “Simplot agrees with EPA's position that Ecology took a conservative approach for emission projections (years 2025 and 2030) by including highest actual emissions, potential to emit, and maximum permitted capacity (84 FR 70132). EPA discusses that Ecology used the most conservative methodology in determining the 2025 design concentration, where the design concentration was determined to be 145 μg/m 3 , below the 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS of 150 ug/m 3 . EPA goes on to state that using `a less conservative methodology factoring the natural events and using maximum 5-year actual rather than maximum allowable permit limits, the projected 2025 design concentration would be 82 μg/m 3 ' (84 FR 70132) . . . There is no additional value to including an analysis of Simplot's actual maximum head count for an alternative 2025 Design Value. Simplot recommends that EPA, in its final action on the Wallula SIP, drop the alternative 2025 Design Value based on Simplot's actual maximum heat count.”

Response 3: As discussed previously, Ecology used a generally conservative, worst-case scenario methodology in projecting potential future emissions and PM 10 concentrations. Specifically, as it relates to Simplot, the 2025 projected future design concentration of 145 μg/m 3 represented no consideration of potential natural events and assumed the Simplot facility would be operating at maximum permitted capacity (80,000 head of cattle). Because of concerns that the general public might not understand the worst-case scenario methodology, Ecology provided supplemental future design concentrations using less conservative methodologies for informational, rather than regulatory purposes. These supplementary projected concentrations ranged from 71 μg/m 3 to 132 μg/m 3 , more consistent with historical and current concentrations monitored in the Wallula area if potential natural events are considered. However, the EPA's proposed approval was based on our determination that the 2025 projected future design concentration of 145 μg/m 3 , calculated in the maintenance demonstration, was below the 150 μg/m 3 threshold for demonstrating continued attainment the PM 10 NAAQS in the Wallula area.

We have determined the commenter's requested clarifications are not warranted at this time because we have explained our rationale for approval in our proposed rule and in the response to comments provided in this preamble, and the additional analysis is not necessary in light of our approval at the higher projected emissions levels. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

The EPA is approving Ecology's second 10-year maintenance plan for the Wallula area as satisfying the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. We are taking final agency action on Ecology's request to exclude wildfire and high wind event-influenced data from August 14, 2015, and September 5 and 6, 2017, with the determination that the PM 10 exceedances on the identified dates were due to exceptional events and can be excluded in determining the attainment status of the area.

We are also approving and incorporating by reference into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(d), updated source-specific requirements for Tyson Fresh Meats, Boise White Paper, now known as Packaging Corporation of America (Wallula Mill), 4 and Simplot Feeders. In addition, we are updating the list of supplementary documents in 40 CFR 52.2470(e) to include the 2003 “Columbia Plateau Windblown Dust Natural Events Action Plan” and Ecology's 2018 update of the “Fugitive Dust Control Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots and Best Management Practices.”

In taking final action to approve Ecology's second 10-year maintenance plan for the Wallula area, we note, as discussed previously, that the first 10-year maintenance plan for the area did not contain any control measures on direct PM 10 emissions from on-road vehicles because the emissions inventory was so heavily dominated by direct PM 10 emissions from agricultural dust sources and a small set of point sources. In comparing the 2002 inventory used in the first 10-year maintenance plan to the 2014 inventory used in the second 10-year maintenance plan, mobile source emissions continued to remain steady at 1% of the overall emissions inventory. Because on-road emissions of direct PM 10 continue to be insignificant, a regional emissions analysis is not required as part future transportation conformity determinations. However, a conformity determination that meets other applicable criteria in Table 1 of 40 CFR 93.109(b) is still required ( e.g., consultation). Hot-spot requirements for projects in PM 10 areas in 40 CFR 93.116 must also be satisfied, subject to certain exceptions. See 40 CFR 93.109(f). In 2017, the boundaries of the Walla Walla Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization were modified to include the Wallula PM 10 maintenance area. As such, the area is now considered to be a metropolitan area for transportation conformity purposes and must meet the applicability requirements in 40 CFR 93.102(a) and the frequency requirements in 40 CFR 93.104.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 5

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 it does not address technical standards; and

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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)).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On February 10, 2020 (85 FR 7494), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Delaware. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of two SIP submissions submitted on behalf of the State of Delaware by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources (DNREC).

DRNEC submitted the first SIP submission on October 11, 2018 to address the infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This submission addressed the following elements of CAA section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). On November 4, 2019, DNREC submitted a letter identifying outdated references in its October 11, 2018 submission and committing to submit a future SIP revision in order to address the deficiency. With this letter, Delaware requested that EPA conditionally approve the State's submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(K), based on the commitment to submit a future SIP revision to update a State regulation to reflect current requirements with respect to modeling.

On December 16, 2019, however, DNREC submitted a second SIP submission to amend Title 7 of the Delaware Administrative Code (DE Admin. Code), Regulation 1125, Requirements for Preconstruction Review in the current EPA-approved SIP for Delaware. The State intended this submission to meet the commitment described in the State's November 4, 2019 letter as previously described. This second submission revises a section of Regulation 1125 to incorporate by reference the most recent revision to EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models into State regulation. Specifically, the revision changes Delaware's regulation that references the “Guideline on Air Quality Models” as published by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in July 1986 and supplemented in July 1987 to the “Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, July 1, 2019 ed.).” Because Delaware has submitted the intended SIP revision outlined in the State's November 4, 2019 letter, EPA considered CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) of Delaware's October 11, 2018 SIP submission for full approval instead of the November 4, 2019 request for conditional approval.

EPA has analyzed Delaware's October 11, 2018 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA also reviewed Delaware's revisions to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 and concludes that the revised references to 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, as published in the July 2019 edition of the CFR, are the correct modeling guidelines to use for implementation of CAA programs. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving Delaware's submissions may be found in the technical support document (TSD) for the proposed rulemaking action which is available online at www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0663. Other specific requirements and background information, as well as the rationale for EPA's proposed action, are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

EPA received four sets of comments in response to the NPRM that are available in the docket for this action. Summaries of the significant adverse comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The first commenter stated that EPA should disapprove Delaware's infrastructure SIP submission because, “it is substantially higher than the 2012 federal levels EPA established for that smog-forming pollutant.” The commenter continued by mentioning a “1,000-pound-per-square-mile rule” which, the commenter stated, Delaware and New Jersey have already implemented while other states have not but are now in the process of complying.

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the comment. The commenter did not provide any additional information beyond general assertions; the commenter did not identify any specific infrastructure element. The commenter suggests Delaware has substantially higher smog-forming pollutants than “2012 federal levels,” but EPA notes that the Agency did not set any “federal levels” in the 2012 calendar year for any smog-forming pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Furthermore, EPA notes the purpose of an infrastructure SIP is to ensure the state has addressed the basic program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS; an infrastructure SIP submission is not required to address the nonattainment plan SIP submission requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) for attainment of the NAAQS in question. 1 To the extent that Delaware has designated nonattainment areas for this NAAQS, the State will address and EPA will evaluate those requirements in a separate action. With respect to a “1,000-pound-per-square-mile rule,” EPA is unaware of any such rule implemented by any of the states named by the commenter, nor was EPA able to identify the commenter's concerns with EPA's proposed approval of Delaware's infrastructure submission as it relates to any such rule.

Comment 2: The second commenter suggested that EPA should disapprove Delaware's infrastructure SIP submission, “because of its findings that either EPA hasn't considered this issue fully or that it is not sufficiently vigilant in its enforcement of its regulations.” The commenter also stated that EPA should disapprove the infrastructure SIP submission out of concern that the State will not be able to sustain its planned measures to reduce ozone during the next two decades. The commenter also referenced four reasonably available control technology (RACT) programs in the states of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and suggested that EPA should disapprove Delaware's infrastructure SIP submission, “until all four states have RACT programs that are approved.”

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that, “EPA hasn't considered this issue fully or that it is not sufficiently vigilant in its enforcement of its regulations.” In the TSD for this rulemaking action, EPA determined that the State of Delaware is currently operating a program to provide for the enforcement of emission limits and other control measures, means, or techniques as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. Delaware's SIP submission references several State laws and regulations which allow the State to exercise its programmatic authority to utilize enforcement powers, and to impose criminal, civil, and administrative penalties to sources in the State that violate applicable SIP emission limits or control measures.

EPA further disagrees that the Agency should disapprove Delaware's submission based on the assertion that the State may not be able to sustain its ozone reductions for the next two decades. In terms of the SIP submissions before EPA in this rulemaking action, the commenter did not identify any specific infrastructure SIP deficiencies which would prevent the State from meeting its obligations. Although the commenter does not identify any specific CAA requirements, EPA believes the commenter is referring to the maintenance plan requirements under CAA section 175A which is analogous to the commenter's phrasing “. . . to sustain ozone reductions for the next two decades.” CAA section 175A requires any state requesting a redesignation of a nonattainment area to submit a revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 10 years. A state is also required under CAA section 175A(b) to submit a second revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional 10 years after the expiration of the first 10-year period; thus, ensuring maintenance of the NAAQS for a total of 20 years. The latter maintenance plan requirements under section 175A are not applicable in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission.

EPA also disagrees that it should disapprove Delaware's infrastructure submission because it has not yet approved RACT submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for the States of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These RACT requirements are not relevant to the applicable infrastructure SIP submission requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), but rather to the requirements in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(I), 182 and 184. These sections establish requirements for nonattainment area SIP submission and the states included in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).

As explained in the response to Comment 1 of this preamble, the purpose of an infrastructure SIP is not to meet nonattainment plan requirements for the NAAQS, but to ensure that a state's SIP includes basic program elements necessary to assure attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(I), 175A, 182, and 184 all relate to states' attainment planning requirements if they have designated nonattainment areas for the NAAQS in question. SIP submissions to meet these requirements are due by different statutorily prescribed deadlines under subparts 2 through 5 under part D. Because the CAA directs states to submit these nonattainment plan SIP submissions on a separate schedule, EPA does not interpret the CAA to require states to address these requirements in the infrastructure SIP submission due three years after promulgation or revision of a NAAQS.

Comment 3: The third commenter questioned EPA's proposed approval of Delaware's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K) pertaining to modeling requirements, including the revision to Regulation 1125. The commenter asserted EPA has already approved an infrastructure SIP submission from the State of New Mexico in which that State had language similar to that of the State of Delaware, and thus suggested that EPA is being inconsistent in its approach to this infrastructure SIP element. The comment further asserted that EPA must explain why Delaware's pre-existing regulation was different from the New Mexico regulation, or else “recall the approval of New Mexico's SIP action and force the state to fix the problem.” The comment also suggested that EPA cannot require Delaware to revise its regulations with respect to modeling authority and requirements to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) “while allowing New Mexico to skirt federal regulations.”

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter. First, as EPA stated in the NPRM and the TSD for this rulemaking action, Delaware is correctly addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) in this action. The State correctly addressed the deficiency initially identified by EPA and submitted a separate SIP revision to change the reference in Regulation 1125 to refer clearly to the Guideline on Air Quality Models in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. Delaware initially identified an existing state regulation to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(K) that explicitly referenced an outdated version of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models. Upon further investigation, EPA determined, and Delaware agreed, that the State regulation did not authorize the State to use the most recent version of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models. Delaware made the necessary changes to the State regulation. EPA proposed approval of Delaware's revision to Regulation 1125 because the revision is consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) and allows the State to comply and use the correct modeling guidelines found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.

Second, EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the Agency is allowing states to “skirt federal regulations” or that the Agency must “recall the approval of New Mexico's SIP action and force the state to fix the problem.” EPA assumes the commenter is referring to the final rulemaking notice (FRN) published on September 18, 2019, relating to New Mexico's 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 2 In the New Mexico FRN, EPA responded to similar comments regarding the appropriateness of the Agency's proposed approval of CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) and explained why the Agency believed the wording of the New Mexico regulation was sufficient in the response to comments section. In that action, upon evaluation of the authority provided by the regulation in question, EPA and the State agreed that New Mexico's regulations submitted to meet the relevant CAA requirements provide the State with the authority and the requirement to use the latest version of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models, also known as Appendix W, and is not restricting the State to use the version referenced in the State's regulation.

Finally, EPA is not acting on any New Mexico SIP submission in this action, thus how New Mexico's SIP meets CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) is not relevant to the approval of Delaware's Regulation 1125 or the Delaware infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(K). Further, the New Mexico action's public comment period closed on May 20, 2019 and the FRN was published on September 18, 2019 (84 FR 49057, September 18, 2019); there is no basis to reopen that action at this time, nor does the commenter provide any such basis.

Comment 4: The fourth commenter asked why EPA was approving Delaware's modeling regulation change. The commenter claimed Delaware's ozone air quality has remained substantially unchanged from 2005 through 2012 even though ozone levels fell in other states. The comment referenced an “Ozone Science Program's (OSP) review of the Virginia program and other states' EPA-issued Ground Level Ozone Standards (GLOS),” but did not elaborate this review's conclusions. The comment claims that EPA approved Delaware's proposed rule change based on flawed science and because of political and regulatory considerations. The comment concludes by claiming, “As a result of EPA's disregard for its own standards, Delaware's ozone standards remain virtually unchanged from 2012 until 2022.”

Response 4: EPA disagrees with the comment. EPA proposed approval of Delaware's Regulation 1125 because the revision corrects a deficiency where the State regulation referenced a specific document authored and published by EPA in 1986 and supplemented in 1987. This document was replaced by 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and was most recently updated in the Federal Register on January 17, 2017 at, 82 FR 5203. Based on this information, DNREC correctly revised Regulation 1125 and submitted it to EPA for approval into the SIP, which EPA subsequently proposed approval in the NPRM. The commenter's assertions that the proposed approval of this regulation is “based on flawed science and because of political and regulatory considerations” is incorrect and the commenter did not provide any additional information to support these claims.

As a factual matter, EPA also disagrees with the assertions that Delaware's air quality has remained unchanged for 10 years. Since 2007, design values  3 in Delaware have consistently trended downward and the most recent data shows only three out of the seven State monitors are showing violations of the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on 2018 design values. 4 EPA reiterates that the purpose of an infrastructure SIP is not to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS, but to ensure that a state's SIP has addressed basic program elements necessary to assure attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Therefore, the status of Delaware's air quality is not relevant to whether EPA should approve the revisions to Regulation 1125 or the State's infrastructure SIP submission.

EPA is approving Delaware's October 11, 2018 infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because it provides the basic program elements specified in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This rulemaking action does not include action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and will be addressed in a separate process. EPA is also approving Delaware's December 16, 2019 SIP submission which updates 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 in order to incorporate by reference the correct modeling guidelines contained in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. EPA's approval of the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K) is based on this revision to Delaware's SIP.

In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of section 3.10 of 7 DE Admin. Code, Regulation 1125, effective January 11, 2020. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 5

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 30, 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, pertaining to Delaware's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and revisions to Regulation 1125, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the four information collection requirements in §§ 1.9046, 96.23(a), 96.25(b), 96.32(a) and (b), and 96.66 on March 31, 2020.

The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Numbers 3060-1211, 3060-1058, 3060-0798, and 3060-0800. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 31, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in §§ 1.9046, 96.23(a), 96.25(b), 96.32(a) and (b), and 96.66. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-1211.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: Sections 96.17; 96.21; 96.23; 96.25; 96.33; 96.35; 96.39; 96.41; 96.43; 96.45; 96.51; 96.57; 96.59; 96.61; 96.63; 96.67, Commercial Operations in the 3550-3700 MHz Band

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 110,782 respondents; 226,099 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 to 1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Ten-year reporting requirement, one time and on occasion reporting requirements, other reporting requirements—as needed basis for equipment safety certifications that is no long in use, and consistently (likely daily) responses automated via the device.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 155(c), 302a, 303, 304, 307(e), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Total Annual Burden: 64,561 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $13,213,975.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: On October 24, 2018, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 18-149, in GN Docket No. 17-158, adopting limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3700 MHz (3.5 GHz) band, including larger license areas, longer license terms, renewability, and performance requirements. The Commission anticipated that the targeted changes made in its 2018 Report and Order will spur additional investment and broader deployment in the band, promote robust and efficient spectrum use, and help ensure the rapid deployment of advanced wireless technologies—including 5G—in the United States.

The rule changes and information requirements contained in the Commission's previous 3.5 GHz band orders—the 2015 Report and Order, FCC 15-47, and 2016 Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, FCC 16-55, both in GN Docket No. 12-354—are also approved under this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number (3060-1211) and have not changed since OMB last approved them.

The Commission received approval from OMB for the information collection requirements contained in the 2018 Report and Order, FCC 18-149, stemming from the changes made to section 96.25(b) of it rules. The Commission revised section 96.25(b) to adopt performance requirements for Priority Access Licensees. Specifically, under the revised rule, Priority Access Licensees must provide substantial service in their license area by the end of the initial license term, i.e., at the end of 10 years. “Substantial service” is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above the level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license without further Commission action, and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it. Licensees shall demonstrate compliance with the performance requirement by filing a construction notification with the Commission in accordance with section 1.946(d) of the Commission's rules. The licensee must certify whether it has met the performance requirement, and file supporting documentation, including description and demonstration of the bona fide service provided, electronic maps accurately depicting the boundaries of the license area and where in the license area the licensee provides service that meets the performance requirement, supporting technical documentation, any population-related assumptions or data used in determining the population covered by a service to the extent any were relied upon, and any other information the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may prescribe by public notice. A licensee's showing of substantial service may not rely on service coverage outside of the PAL Protection Areas of registered Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) or on deployments that are not reflected in Spectrum Access System (SAS) records of CBSD registrations.

The Commission adopted two safe harbors for meeting the “substantial service” requirement: (1) A Priority Access Licensee providing a mobile service or point-to-multipoint service may demonstrate substantial service by showing that it provides signal coverage and offers service, either to customers or for internal use, over at least 50 percent of the population in the license area; and (2) A Priority Access Licensee providing a fixed point-to-point service may demonstrate substantial service by showing that it has constructed and operates at least four links, either to customers or for internal use, in license areas with 134,000 population or less and in license areas with greater population, a minimum number of links equal to the population of the license area divided by 33,500 and rounded up to the nearest whole number. To satisfy this provision, such links must operate using registered Category B CBSDs.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1058.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: FCC Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement or Private Commons Arrangement: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Form Number: FCC Form 608.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions, individual or households, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 1,091 respondents; 1,091 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement and periodic reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in 47 U.S.C., 154, 155, 158, 161, 301, 303(r), 308, 309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Total Annual Burden: 1,096 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,411,450.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 608 is a multipurpose form. It is used to provide notification or request approval for any spectrum leasing arrangement (“Leases”) entered into between an existing licensee (“Licensee”) in certain wireless services and a spectrum lessee (“Lessee”). This form also is required to notify or request approval for any spectrum subleasing arrangement (“Sublease”). The data collected on the form is used by the FCC to determine whether the public interest would be served by the Lease or Sublease. The form is also used to provide notification for any Private Commons Arrangement entered into between a Licensee, Lessee, or Sublessee and a class of third-party users (as defined in Section 1.9080 of the Commission's Rules). Respondents are required to submit FCC Form 608 electronically, except in certain services specifically designated by the Commission.

Records may include information about individuals or households, e.g., personally identifiable information or PII, and the use(s) and disclosure of this information will be governed by the requirements of a system of records notice or `SORN', FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records.” Updating the SORN to include FCC Form 608 is currently underway. There are no additional impacts under the Privacy Act.

On April 28, 2016, the Commission adopted its Second Report and Order, FCC 16-55, in GN Docket No. 12-354, adopting additional rules for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3.5 GHz band. As part of the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a light-touch leasing regime for Priority Access Licensees by amending its existing Part 1 rules to include a streamlined spectrum manager leasing process, based on the current spectrum manager leasing rules, tailored for the PAL leasing context. The Commission expects there will be a demand for Priority Access rights for a wide variety of use cases, and that a robust, flexible, and lightly regulated secondary market through these band-specific spectrum manager leasing rules will incentivize efficient spectrum use, promote innovation, and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband networks in the 3.5 GHz Band. Specifically, in the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted section 1.9046, which provides special provisions for spectrum manager leases in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service. This rule allows a Priority Access Licensee to engage in spectrum manager leasing for any portion of its spectrum or geographic area, outside of the PAL Protection Area, for any bandwidth or duration period of time with any entity that has provided a certification to the Commission in accordance with section 1.9046 or pursuant to the general notification procedures of section 1.9020(e) of the Commission's rules. The lessee seeking to engage in spectrum manager leasing pursuant to section 1.9046 must certify with the Commission that it meets the same eligibility and qualification requirements applicable to the licensee before entering into a spectrum manger leasing arrangement with a Priority Access Licensee. The certification will be made via FCC Form 608.

Prior to lessee operation, the licensee seeking to engage in spectrum manager leasing pursuant to section 1.9046 must submit notification of the leasing arrangement to the Spectrum Access System (SAS) Administrator with the following information: (1) Lessee contact information including name, address, telephone number, fax number, email address; (2) Lessee FCC Registration Number (FRN); (3) name of Real Party in Interest and related FCC Registration Number (FRN); (4) the specific spectrum leased (in terms of amount of bandwidth and geographic area involved) including the call sign(s) affected by the lease; and (5) duration of the lease.

A spectrum leasing arrangement may be extended beyond the initial term set forth in the spectrum leasing notification for an additional period not to exceed the term of the Priority Access License, provided that the licensee notifies the SAS Administrator of the extension in advance of operation under the extended term and does so pursuant to the notification procedures in section 1.9046.

If a spectrum leasing arrangement is terminated earlier than the termination date set forth in the notification, either by the licensee or by the parties' mutual agreement, the licensee must file a notification with the SAS Administrator no later than ten (10) days after the early termination, indicating the date of the termination.

If the parties fail to put the spectrum leasing arrangement into effect, they must so notify the Spectrum Access System Administrator as promptly as practicable.

Under the Part 96 rules, three types of respondents may be completing FCC Form 608. First, entities seeking to engage in light touch leasing will pre-certify with the FCC that they meet the non-lease-specific eligibility and qualification criteria by completing non-lease-specific data fields pulled from FCC Form 608. Second, the Priority Access Licensees would use the form in three ways. For light touch leasing, Priority Access Licensees would notify the SAS Administrator of leasing arrangements with pre-certified lessees by completing lease-specific data fields pulled from FCC Form 608. Part 96 also permits Priority Access Licensees to enter into lease agreements using the general spectrum manager leasing agreement rules under part 1 of the rules, which would require a FCC Form 608. Priority Access Licensees may also enter into de facto transfer leasing arrangements for a portion of their licensed spectrum pursuant to part 1 of the Commission's rules and would use FCC Form 608 to do so. Third, on a daily basis, the SAS Administrator will provide the Commission with an electronic report of the leasing notifications completed by the Priority Access Licensees. The SAS Administrators will be providing the report through an Application Programming Interface (API). The Commission has reused the code from the general spectrum manager leasing FCC Form 608 in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) to program the SAS light touch leasing API.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization; Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Form Number: FCC Form 601.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions, individuals and households, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 255,452 respondents; 255,452 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement and periodic reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534, 535, 554.

Total Annual Burden: 223,921 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $71,906,000.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application form that is used for market-based and site-based licensing for wireless telecommunications services, including public safety licenses, which are filed through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC Form 601 is composed of a main form that contains administrative information and a series of schedules used for filing technical and other information. This form is used to apply for a new license, to amend or withdraw a pending application, to modify or renew an existing license, cancel a license, request a duplicate license, submit required notifications, request an extension of time to satisfy construction requirements, or request an administrative update to an existing license (such as mailing address change), request a Special Temporary Authority or Developmental License. Respondents are required to submit FCC Form 601 electronically, except in certain services specifically designated by the Commission.

The data collected on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission to use an FRN. Records may include information about individuals or households, e.g., personally identifiable information or PII, and the use(s) and disclosure of this information are governed by the requirements of a system of records notice or `SORN', FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records.” There are no additional impacts under the Privacy Act.

On October 24, 2018, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 18-149, in GN Docket No. 17-158, adopting limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3700 MHz (3.5 GHz) band, including larger license areas, longer license terms, renewability, and performance requirements. The Commission anticipated that the targeted changes made in its 2018 Report and Order will spur additional investment and broader deployment in the band, promote robust and efficient spectrum use, and help ensure the rapid deployment of advanced wireless technologies—including 5G—in the United States. Among these changes, the Commission revised section 96.23(a) of its rules to require that an applicant must file an application for an initial PAL, and that the application must: (1) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an authorization; (2) state how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity; (3) contain all information required by FCC rules and application forms; (4) propose operation of a facility or facilities in compliance with all rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service; and (5) be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions of section 1.65 of the Commission's rules.

The Commission received approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 601.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0800.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: FCC Application For Assignment of Authorization and Transfers of Control: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

Form Number: FCC Form 603.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions, individuals and households, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 2,547 respondents; 2,547 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 1.75 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, on occasion reporting requirement, and periodic reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 158, 161, 301, 303(r), 308, 309, 310, and 332.

Total Annual Burden : 2,872 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $381,975.

Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 603 is a multi-purpose form that is used by radio services in Wireless Services within the Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC 603 is composed of a main form that contains the administrative information and a series of schedules. These schedules are required when applying for Auctioned Services, Partitioning and Disaggregation, Undefined Geographical Area Partitioning, and Notification of Consummation or Request for Extension of Time for Consummation. Applicants/licensees in the Public Mobile Services, Personal Communications Services, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Broadband Radio Service, Educational Broadband Service, Maritime Services (excluding Ship), and Aviation Services (excluding Aircraft) use FCC Form 603 to apply for an assignment or transfer, to establish their parties' basic eligibility and qualifications, to classify the filing, and/or to determine the nature of the proposed service. This form is also used to notify the FCC of consummated assignments and transfers of wireless licenses to which the Commission has previously consented or for which notification but not prior consent is required. Respondents are required to submit FCC Form 603 electronically, except in certain services specifically designated by the Commission.

The data collected on FCC Form 603 include the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 required that those filing with the Commission to use an FRN, effective December 3, 2001.

Records may include information about individuals or households, e.g., personally identifiable information or PII, and the use(s) and disclosure of this information are governed by the requirements of a system of records notice or `SORN', FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records.” There are no additional impacts under the Privacy Act.

On October 24, 2018, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 18-149, in GN Docket No. 17-158, adopting limited changes to the rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3550-3700 MHz (3.5 GHz) band, including larger license areas, longer license terms, renewability, and performance requirements. The Commission anticipated that the targeted changes made in its 2018 Report and Order will spur additional investment and broader deployment in the band, promote robust and efficient spectrum use, and help ensure the rapid deployment of advanced wireless technologies—including 5G—in the United States. The Commission received approval for the information under OMB Control Number 3060-0800 to permit the collection of the additional information in connection with partial assignments of authorizations for geographic partitioning, spectrum disaggregation, or a combination of both, pursuant to the rules and information collection requirements adopted by the Commission 2018 Report and Order. Specifically, in the 2018 Report and Order, the Commission revised section 96.32(b) of its rules to allow Priority Access Licensees to partition their licenses or disaggregate their spectrum, and partially assign or transfer their licenses, pursuant to § 1.950 of the Commission's rules. Because of the additional Priority Access Licensees, additional respondents may be filing FCC Form 603 for assignments or transfers of control of licenses.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 as follows.

I. Background

On March 23, 2020, TSA published the final rule, “Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees.”  1 The regulation requires owner/operators of higher-risk freight railroad carriers, public transportation agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad carriers, and over-the-road bus companies, to provide TSA-approved security training to employees performing security-sensitive functions. As originally published, that final rule was scheduled to take effect on June 22, 2020, with the first compliance deadline set for July 22, 2020. 2

Before and since publication, TSA has observed the growing nationwide impact of the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, including the impact of actions taken at various levels of government to slow its spread. 3 Some of these actions have affected the operations and staffing of many of the owner/operators affected by the final rule. In recognition of the potential impact of COVID-19 measures and related strain on resources, TSA is delaying the effective date for requirements in the rule.

The following table identifies the revised effective date and the impact of this change on compliance dates tied to the effective date.

Background

The Northern Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act) of 1982 gives the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada. 16 U.S.C. 773-773k. The Halibut Act requires that the Secretary adopt regulations to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and Halibut Act 16 U.S.C. 773(c). The Halibut Act also authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) to govern the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)).

At its annual meeting in February 2020, the IPHC recommended an Area 2A catch limit of 1,500,000 pounds (lb) (680.4 metric tons (mt)) for 2020. This catch limit is derived from the total constant exploitation yield (TCEY) of 1,650,000 lb (748.4 mt), which includes commercial discards and bycatch estimates calculated using a formula developed by the IPHC. The table below shows the fishery and subarea allocations resulting from the framework described in the 2020 Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan.

The Area 2A catch limit, tribal commercial fishery allocation, and commercial fishery allocations are adopted by the IPHC and were published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2020 (85 FR 14586) after acceptance by the Secretary of State in accordance with 50 CFR 300.62.

Since 1988, NMFS has implemented annual Catch Sharing Plans that allocate the IPHC regulatory Area 2A Pacific halibut catch limit between treaty Indian and non-Indian harvesters, and among non-Indian commercial and recreational (sport) fisheries. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) develops Catch Sharing Plans in accordance with the Halibut Act. In 1995, the Council recommended, and NMFS approved and implemented a long-term Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan (60 FR 14651; March 20, 1995). NMFS has been implementing adjustments to the Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan based on Council recommendations each year to address the changing needs of these fisheries. While the full Catch Sharing Plan is not published in the Federal Register , it is made available on the Council and NMFS websites.

This rule adopts the Council's recommended changes to the Catch Sharing Plan for IPHC regulatory Area 2A, which affect only the recreational fishery. The Catch Sharing Plan changes provide more opportunities for anglers in Washington and Oregon by remaining open more days per week, opening up to one month earlier, and transferring quota to the Columbia River from the Southern Oregon subarea in years with a high catch limit. Details of these changes are described in the proposed rule and are not repeated here.

In addition, this rule implements the recreational Pacific halibut fishery management measures, such as season dates and some catch limits, set in NMFS regulations and described in the proposed rule (85 FR 6883; February 6, 2020). These management measures are detailed in the Council's recommended Catch Sharing Plan and were developed through the Council's public process. This rule implements most of the 2020 dates for the recreational fisheries consistent with the Council's recommendations as well as recommendations from Oregon, Washington, and California that were received either during the Council process or during the comment period for the proposed rule. However, this rule implements season dates different from the proposed rule for the State of Washington, in response to measures enacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This rule also revises some provisions of the regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, for clarity and consistency. Regulations at 50 CFR 300.61 and 300.64 describe the usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas of Indian tribes with treaty fishing rights to Pacific halibut. NMFS is revising the definition of Subarea 2A-1 at 50 CFR 300.61 to a more general description. At 50 CFR 300.64, NMFS is updating the table to reflect a March 5, 2018, court decision revising the western boundaries of the U&A fishing areas for the Quileute Indian Tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation. United States v. Washington, 2:09-sp-00001-RSM, (W.D. Wash. March 5, 2018) (Order Regarding Boundaries of Quinault and Quileute U&As). The boundaries of other U&A fishing areas are not affected by this rulemaking. At 50 CFR 300.63(d), NMFS is removing cross-references to specific section numbers in IPHC regulations to prevent inconsistency.

The 2020 Catch Sharing Plan allows incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, WA, when the Washington recreational catch limit is 214,110 lb (101.7 mt) or greater, provided that a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.5 mt) is available. The Area 2A catch limit for 2020 is great enough to allow 70,000 lb (31.8 mt) for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery, which is the maximum amount that may be allocated to the sablefish fishery when the catch limit is 1,500,000 lb (680.4 mt) or more. This limit was adopted as part of the rule published March 13, 2020 (85 FR 14586), and as shown in Table 1. Incidental halibut landing restrictions in the sablefish fishery are recommended by the Council and implemented in the groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.231(b)(3)(iv).

The annual domestic management measures are published each year through a final rule under NMFS' authority to implement the Halibut Convention (50 CFR 300.62). For the 2020 fishing season, the final rule for the commercial fisheries, IPHC regulations, and catch limits was published on March 13, 2020 (85 FR 14586). The section numbers below correspond to IPHC regulation sections in the March 13, 2020, final rule.

NMFS is adopting recreational fishery management measures, including season dates that are necessary to implement the Council's recommended Catch Sharing Plan in 2020. The Catch Sharing Plan includes a framework for setting fishing open days by subarea, and each state submits final recommended season dates annually. While this rule implements most season dates as recommended by the Council, some season dates for the State of Washington are different from the proposed rule, in response to measures enacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the exception of some Washington season dates, the recreational fishing regulations for Area 2A are consistent with the measures adopted by the IPHC and approved by the Secretary of State, but were developed in part by the Council and promulgated by the United States under the Halibut Act.

At the time of the publication of this rule, in response to the spread of COVID-19, there are certain measures in place in the State of Washington that would inhibit the accurate monitoring of the quota allocations implemented through this action. Accurate monitoring and catch accounting of the overall Area 2A allocation, as well subarea allocations, is important for the conservation and management of Pacific halibut and maintaining the intended fishing opportunity provided by this rule. Specifically, State port samplers are currently not being deployed to collect catch information on recreational landings, and data collected by these samplers is necessary to track the state and subarea catch allocations and prevent overages. At the time of this publication, Washington has announced that it anticipates keeping this restriction in place through May 4, 2020. Based on this information, NMFS has determined that it is necessary to implement an opening season date in Washington State subareas such that the season will start on the next proposed open day after May 4, 2020. For Washington subareas, the first open date is May 7, 2020. The largest difference in these dates compared to what was proposed is for the Puget Sound subarea. Initially, the Puget Sound subarea was proposed to open April 16, 2020, which would have been two weeks earlier than the May 2, 2019, opening. In 2018, Washington fisheries opened statewide May 11, therefore this change does not result in a major difference compared with previous years' opening dates.

State measures being put in place as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are fluid, and it may be necessary to further modify the opening dates or respond to a decrease in catch monitoring in other subareas within Washington State, or California and Oregon shortly after the publication of this final rule. Any such change will be announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or 800-662-9825. NMFS is closely monitoring this situation and coordinating with all three of the West Coast state fish and wildlife agencies, so that we can meet conservation needs while also providing fishing opportunity.

This rule provides specific regulations, as referred to in paragraph (7) of the 2020 IPHC regulations under the heading, “Recreational (Sport) Fishing for Pacific Halibut—IPHC Regulatory Area 2A”:

(8) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified by an inseason action consistent with 50 CFR 300.63(c). All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.

(a) The quota for the area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N lat., 124°23.70′ W long. north to 48°24.10′ N lat., 124°23.70′ W long., is 77,550 pounds (35.18 mt).

(i) The fishing seasons are:

(A) For the area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line at approximately 123°49.60′ W long., fishing is open May 7-9, 14-16, 22-24, 28-30; June 4-6, 11-13, 18-20, and 25-27, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any closure will be announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

(B) For the area in U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, approximately between 124°23.70′ W long. and 123°49.60′ W long., fishing is open May 7, 9, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 28-30; June 4-6, 11-13, 18-20, and 25-27, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any closure will be announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(b) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (2)(a) of section 26 and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N lat.) (North Coast subarea), is 128,187 pounds (58.14 mt).

(i) The fishing seasons are:

(A) Fishing is open May 7, 9, 14, 16, 22, 24, 28, 30; June 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20, 25, and 27, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any closure will be announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or 800-662-9825.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iii) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing with recreational gear in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined in groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.70(b).

(c) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N lat.), and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N lat.)(South Coast subarea), is 62,896 pounds (28.53 mt).

(i) This subarea is divided between the all-depth fishery (the Washington South coast primary fishery), and the incidental nearshore fishery in the area from 47°31.70′ N lat. south to 46°58.00′ N lat. and east of a boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour. This area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated as described by the following coordinates (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area):

The primary fishery season dates are May 7, 10, 14, 17, 21; June 18, 21, 25, and 28, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. Any closure will be announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or 800-662-9825. If sufficient quota remains, the fishing season in the nearshore area commences the Saturday subsequent to the closure of the primary fishery and continues 7 days per week until 62,896 pounds (28.53 mt) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is closed by the Commission or September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iii) Seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30-fm (55-m) depth contour and during days open to the primary fishery, lingcod may be taken, retained and possessed when allowed by groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.360.

(iv) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA and/or Westport Offshore YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA are areas off the southern Washington coast established to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(e). The Westport Offshore YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(f).

(d) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N lat.), and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N lat.)(Columbia River subarea), is 18,450 pounds (8.37 mt).

(i) This subarea is divided into an all-depth fishery and a nearshore fishery. The nearshore fishery is allocated 500 lb (0.23 mt) of the subarea allocation. The nearshore fishery extends from Leadbetter Point (46°38.17′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long.) to the Columbia River (46°16.00′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long.) by connecting the following coordinates in Washington: 46°38.17′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long. 46°16.00′ N lat., 124°15.88′ W long. and connecting to the boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour in Oregon. The nearshore fishery opens May 4, and continues on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday each week until the nearshore allocation is taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier. The all-depth fishing season is open April 30; May 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 28, 31; June 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, and 28, or until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission, or September 30, whichever is earlier. Any closure will be announced on the NMFS hotline at (206) 526-6667 or 800-662-9825. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iii) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, flatfish species, and lingcod caught north of the Washington-Oregon border during the recreational halibut fishery, when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, during days open to the all-depth fishery only.

(iv) Taking, retaining, possessing, or landing halibut on groundfish trips is only allowed in the nearshore area on days not open to all-depth Pacific halibut fisheries.

(e) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N lat.) (Oregon Central Coast subarea), is 271,592 pounds (123.19 mt).

(i) The fishing seasons are:

(A) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences May 1, and continues 7 days a week, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery of 32,591 pounds (14.8 mt), or any inseason revised subquota, is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N lat. and 42°40.50′ N lat. is defined at § 660.71(o).

(B) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open May 14, 15, 16; 21, 22, 23; 28, 29, 30; June 11, 12, 13; 18, 19, 20; and July 9, 10, 11. The allocation to the all-depth fishery is 171,103 pounds (77.6 mt). If sufficient unharvested quota remains for additional fishing days, the season will re-open July 23, 24, 25. Notice of the re-opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

(C) The third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be August 6, 7, 8; 20, 21, 22; September 3, 4, 5; 17, 18, 19; October 1, 2, 3; 15, 16, 17; 29, 30, 31; and will continue until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, Oregon, are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. Additional fishing days may be opened if sufficient quota remains after the last day of the first scheduled open period. If, after this date, an amount greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Thursday, Friday and Saturday, beginning August 6, 7, and 8, and ending when there is insufficient quota remaining, whichever is earlier. If after September 8, an amount greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Thursday, Friday and Saturday, the fishery may re-open every Thursday, Friday and Saturday, beginning September 10, 11, and 12, and ending October 31. After September 8, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.

(iii) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing when the groundfish fishery is restricted by depth, no groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species, when allowed by groundfish regulations, if halibut are onboard the vessel. During days open to all-depth halibut fishing when the groundfish fishery is open to all depths, any groundfish species permitted under the groundfish regulations may be retained, possessed or landed if halibut are on board the vessel. During days open to nearshore halibut fishing, flatfish species may be taken and retained seaward of the seasonal groundfish depths restrictions, if halibut are on board the vessel.

(iv) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.

(v) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not possess any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined at § 660.70(g).

(f) The quota for landings into ports in the area south of Humbug Mountain, OR (42°40.50′ N lat.) to the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N lat.) (Southern Oregon subarea) is 8,000 pounds (3.63 mt).

(i) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 7 days per week until the subquota is taken, or October 31, whichever is earlier.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut per person with no size limit.

(iii) No Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species, in areas closed to groundfish, if halibut are on board the vessel.

(g) The quota for landings into ports south of the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N lat.) and along the California coast is 39,000 pounds (17.69 mt).

(i) The fishing season will be open May 1 through October 31, or until the subarea quota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce any closure by the Commission on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

NMFS accepted public comments on the Council's recommended modifications to the 2020 Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan and the resulting proposed domestic fishing regulations through March 9, 2020. NMFS received two comments from State agencies- the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and one comment from a stakeholder.

Comment 1: ODFW submitted a comment recommending final recreational fishing season dates for the 2020 season for the Central Oregon Coast subarea. ODFW hosted a public meeting and an online survey following the IPHC annual meeting. Based on stakeholder input, past effort, and tides, ODFW recommended season dates for the spring and summer Central Coast fisheries. For spring, fixed open dates on May 14, 15, 16; May 21, 22, 23; May 28, 29, 30; June 11, 12, 13; June 18, 19, 20; and July 9, 10, 11. ODFW recommended spring fishery backup dates on July 23, 24, 25. ODFW recommended summer fishery dates on August 6, 7, 8; August 20, 21, 22; September 3, 4, 5; September 17, 18,19; October 1, 2, 3; October 15, 16, 17; and October 29, 30, 31; or until the total 2020 all-depth catch limit for the subarea is taken.

Response: NMFS concurs that the ODFW-recommended season dates are appropriate. There are a few differences between the spring season dates NMFS published in the proposed rule and those recommended by ODFW. However, ODFW surveyed their stakeholders after the IPHC adopted the catch limit for 2020 and considered stakeholder input, past effort and tides in making their recommendation. NMFS has updated the recreational fishery season dates off of Oregon to those recommended by ODFW in this final rule.

Comment 2: CDFW submitted a comment concurring with the season dates NMFS published in the proposed rule for the 2020 season. CDFW hosted an online survey following the IPHC annual meeting. Based on public comments received on Pacific halibut fisheries in California and fishing performance in recent years, CDFW recommended season dates of May 1-October 31, or until quota has been attained, whichever comes first.

Response: NMFS concurs that these season dates are appropriate. The catch limit for 2020 is the same as 2019, and the California catch limit was not fully attained last year with the same season dates. NMFS affirms the recreational fishery season dates off of California in this final rule.

Comment 3: NMFS received one public comment in support of approving the 2020 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan. This comment also suggested further review of incidental catch and fostering input from diverse groups of stakeholders.

Response: NMFS concurs that approving the 2020 Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan is appropriate. With regards to the commenters' concern regarding the incidental catch distribution and stakeholder opinion, although NMFS believes in the accuracy of the incidental catch and has made various attempts, including taking public comment on the proposed rule, to gain insight on the public's needs, we will continue to review ways to ensure these two areas are as accurate as possible in the future.

As described in the response to Comment 1 above, NMFS changed season dates off of Oregon in this final rule.

NMFS is also implementing season dates in the Washington subareas such that the season will start on the next proposed open day after May 4, 2020. For Washington fisheries, the first open date is May 7, 2020. The Puget Sound subarea dates are the most different than those proposed. An opening date of April 16, 2020, was originally proposed and would have resulted in the Puget Sound fishery opening two weeks earlier than previous years, in an attempt to provide more angler opportunity in an area that had low attainment in 2019. The other Washington subareas will have two fewer fishing days than proposed and would open around the same time as previous years. Therefore this is not a significant change from previous years' opening dates.

The decision to modify the opening season date for Washington subareas is a result of the various measures currently in place associated with Washington State's “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” order. Specifically, State port samplers are currently not being deployed to collect catch information on recreational landings, and data collected by these samplers is necessary to track the state and subarea catch allocations and prevent overages. At this time, it is unclear when port sampling will resume. WDFW has also closed all State recreational fisheries through May 4, 2020. Therefore, unless that order is revised, it is unlikely that samplers will begin working before that date. The situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic remains fluid. While it appears there will not be port sampling prior to May 5, 2020, port sampling is carried out by the State and may be revised quickly. It may therefore be necessary to further modify the opening dates or other fishing days for some subareas shortly after the publication of this final rule in response to changes in State measures related to the spread of COVID-19.

Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 of the Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. This action is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off Washington, Oregon, and California.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a thirty-day delay in effective date is not applicable because these final regulations for the 2020 Pacific halibut fishing season relieve a restriction. The 2020 Catch Sharing Plan provides the framework for the annual management measures and subarea allocations based on the 2020 Area 2A catch limit for Pacific halibut. These allocations are based on the best available new information on the population status of Pacific halibut, determined at the annual meeting of the IPHC held February 3-7, 2020. Additionally, the Washington Puget Sound subarea was originally scheduled to be open April 16, 2020, two weeks earlier than in 2019, to allow more opportunity for fishing and this rule implements subarea allocations for that fishery. Due to COVID-19, Washington has closed its recreational fisheries and paused its port sampling and catch accounting program. Without catch data, there is no way to track state and subarea landings against the allocation to prevent overages. NMFS is responding to the Washington recreational fishing actions by revising season dates in the Washington subareas such that the season will start on the next proposed open day after May 4, 2020. The season date being implemented in this action is similar to season start dates in previous years, when Washington had season openers on May 2, 2019, and May 11, 2018. The recreational season for the Columbia River subarea, beginning on the soonest possible scheduled date after April 30, 2020, is scheduled to take place as proposed. A delay in the effectiveness of this rule for a full thirty days would result in delayed openings for these fisheries rather than on the dates the affected public are expecting.

Additionally, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to ensure these regulations are effective immediately upon publication. The Council's 2020 Catch Sharing Plan approved in this rule includes changes that respond to the needs of the fisheries in Washington and Oregon, including fisheries that begin on the soonest possible scheduled date after April 30, 2020. In 2019, the recreational fisheries in Washington, Oregon, and California did not achieve their full quotas as in previous years. The Council recommended changes to the Catch Sharing Plan to allow fisheries in Washington and Oregon to open up earlier and remain open more days per week, as well as transfer quota from Southern Oregon to the Columbia River subarea in years with a high catch limit. Delaying the effective date of this rule beyond April 30, 2020, would be contrary to the public interest because, without these changes, fishing opportunity is lost, potentially causing economic harm to communities at sport fishing ports. Washington season dates published in the proposed rule were revised in the final rule from mid-April to early May. The Columbia River subarea is still scheduled to be open on the soonest possible scheduled date after April 30, and Oregon and California fisheries are still scheduled to be open May 1. Additionally, the season dates in this rule are specific to 2020 according to the Catch Sharing Plan framework. Without the publication of this rule, the 2019 season dates would remain in place, and would not occur on the days of the week specified in the Catch Sharing Plan.

Therefore, allowing the 2019 Catch Sharing Plan to remain in place would not respond to the needs of the fishery and would be in conflict with the Council's final recommendation for 2020. A thirty-day delay in effectiveness could cause economic harm to the associated fishing communities by reducing fishing opportunity at the start of the fishing year. As a result of the potential harm to fishing communities that could be caused by delaying the effectiveness of this final rule, NMFS finds good cause to make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A summary of the analysis follows.

A statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments.

There were no issues raised about the IRFA in the public comments.

The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments.

There were no comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

The Halibut Act gives the Secretary of Commerce responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Halibut Convention between the United States and Canada. The Halibut Act requires that the Secretary adopt regulations to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Halibut Convention and Halibut Act. The Halibut Act also authorizes the regional fishery management councils to develop regulations in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations of the IPHC to govern the Pacific halibut catch in their corresponding U.S. Convention waters. The Council's main management objective for the Pacific halibut fishery in Area 2A is to manage fisheries to remain within the catch limit for Area 2A.

A second objective is to allow the recreational (sport) fishery to target halibut in the manner that is appropriate to meet the conservation requirements for species that co-occur with Pacific halibut. A third objective is to meet the needs of fishery participants in particular fisheries and fishing areas.

This action revises the recreational Pacific halibut fishery management measures, such as season dates and some catch limits that are set in NMFS regulations. This rule opens the recreational fishery with 2020 season dates and subarea allocations, impacting charter boats, anglers, and businesses relying on sport fishing across all of Area 2A. This rule also makes changes to the sport fishing sector of the Catch Sharing Plan for the halibut fishery, impacting participants in the recreational Washington and Oregon subareas. Therefore, this rule may affect some charterboat operations in Area 2A. Previous analyses determined that charterboats are small businesses (see 77 FR 5477 (February 3, 2012) and 76 FR 2876 (January 18, 2011)). Charter fishing operations are classified under NAICS code, 487210, with a corresponding Small Business Association size standard of $7.5 million in annual receipts. No commercial fishing entities are directly affected by this rule.

In 2019, the IPHC issued 84 licenses to the charterboat fleet. NMFS estimates there are 47 licensed charterboats in Washington, and 26 in Oregon. Recent information on charterboat activity is not available, but prior analysis indicated that 60 percent of the IPHC charterboat license holders (around 50 vessels) may be affected by these regulations. Private vessels used for recreational fishing are not businesses and are therefore not subject to the RFA.

The changes to the Catch Sharing Plan and domestic management measures do not include any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

The major effect of halibut management on small entities will be from the catch limit decisions made by the IPHC, a decision independent from this action. This action implements management measures including season dates and bag limits for the recreational fishery, and makes minor changes to the Catch Sharing Plan to provide increased recreational opportunities under the allocations that result from the Area 2A catch limit. The changes to the Catch Sharing Plan are considered minor, with minimal economic effects.

In the description of the entities affected, estimates of the amount of charterboat activity from the number of licensed vessels were based on a 2004 report by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. This report has not been updated and the number of entities is assumed to be similar.

The status quo alternative of not implementing management measures, such as season dates and bag limits, or revising the Catch Sharing Plan would not achieve the objectives and requirements of the Convention and Halibut Act, specifically conserving Pacific halibut and allocating quota equitably. Without establishing 2020 season dates and subarea allocations, there would be a significant economic impact on the entire recreational sector, including charter boats. When considered with the management measures, the changes to the Catch Sharing Plan have minimal effect on the fishery and there are no other additional significant alternatives that further minimize the impact of the rule on small entities while achieving the goals and objectives of the Convention and Halibut Act. In addition, these management measures and Catch Sharing Plan changes were proposed by stakeholders to address the needs of the fisheries, and, as explained above, the changes are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a public notice to fishery participants that also serves as a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the West Coast Regional Office, and the guide, i.e., public notice, will be sent to all stakeholders on the email listserv for the groundfish fishery, and posted to the West Coast groundfish and halibut web pages. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request.

A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

This rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with the tribal representative on the Council, pursuant to Executive Order 13175.

The U.S. Government formally recognizes that the 13 Washington Tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. In general terms, the quantification of those rights is 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of Pacific halibut available in the tribes' usual and accustomed fishing areas (described at 50 CFR 300.64). Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the changes to the Catch Sharing Plan, have been developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, is amended as follows: