Federal Register Vol. 82, No.157,

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class E airspace extending up to and including 700 feet above the surface area at Wayne Municipal Airport, Wayne, NE., in support of the instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also will be updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 22924, May 19, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0287 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne Municipal Airport, Wayne, NE. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7.5-mile radius) of Wayne Municipal Airport, Wayne, NE. Airspace redesign of standard instrument approach procedures is necessary for IFR operations at the airport due to the decommissioning of the Wayne NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The geographic coordinates of the airport also are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

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

The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 22093, May 12, 2017), Docket No. FAA-2017-0298 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Vivian Airport, Vivian, LA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Vivian Airport. The segment within 1.4 miles each side of the 298° radial of the Shreveport VORTAC extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 7.5 miles northwest of the airport is removed due to the decommissioning of the Vivian NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The VOR approach was previously redesigned to use the Vivian NDB when the Shreveport VORTAC was changed to the Belcher VORTAC, but was never noted in the airspace description. This action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that 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 qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because insufficient time remains to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments, as the Islamorada Grand Prix event will occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers associated with high-speed races in the marine environment, the special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, the general public, and vessels transiting the event area. For those reasons, it would be impracticable to publish an NPRM.

For the reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations is 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States during the Islamorada Grand Prix of the Seas high-speed race event.

This rule establishes a special local regulation that will encompass certain waters in the vicinity of Islamorada, Florida, during the Islamorada Grand Prix of the Seas high-speed boat race. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 19, 2017 through August 20, 2017. The special local regulation will establish the following regulated areas: (1) A race area and buffer zone; and (2) a spectator area. Within the race area and buffer zone, non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a designated representative. Within the spectator area, all persons and vessels are prohibited from traveling in excess of wake speed without obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, remain within, or transit in excess of wake speed within the regulated area by contacting the COTP Key West by telephone at ((305) 292-8772 or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the COTP Key West or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Key West or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

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

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced for only nine hours daily, from August 19, 2017 through August 20, 2017; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone without authorization from the COTP Key West or a designated representative, vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the regulated areas; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area and buffer zone or transit in excess of wake speed in the spectator zone if authorized by the COTP Key West or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notice of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation that will prohibit non-participant persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited race area and will also prohibit persons and vessels from transiting at more than wake speed within a limited spectator area during a two day race event lasting nine hours daily. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking?

On October 1, 2007, June 17, 2013, and January 20, 2016, SC DHEC submitted SIP revisions to EPA for approval to make administrative and clarifying amendments and correct typographical errors. These SIP submittals make changes to several air quality rules in the South Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.). The changes EPA is approving into the SIP in this action modify portions of Regulation 61-62.5—“Air Pollution Control Standards” at Standard No. 5—“Volatile Organic Compounds,” and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2—“Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).”

At this time, EPA is not acting on changes in the October 1, 2007, submittal to Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements” or Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries.” EPA is also not acting on the changes included in the June 17, 2013, submittal to the following regulations: Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions”; Regulation 61-62.1, Section II—“Permit Requirements”; Regulation 61-62.1, Section IV—“Source Tests”; Regulation 61-62.3—“Air Pollution Episodes”; or Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—“Emissions from Process Industries.” Finally, EPA is not acting on the changes included in the January 20, 2016, submittal to the following regulations: Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, “Permit Requirements”; Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1—“Nonattainment New Source Review”; or Regulation 61-62.6—“Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter.”

South Carolina is amending its standards for controlling VOCs at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5—“Volatile Organic Compounds.” The June 17, 2013, submittal revises the VOC regulation to make several administrative edits only, including formatting for consistency and correcting typographical errors in Section I, Part A and Part G and Section II, Part Q.1 The January 20, 2016, submittal also revises the VOC regulation to make further administrative edits only, including formatting for consistency in Section II, Part A and Part B. EPA has reviewed the changes made to South Carolina's VOC regulation and is approving them into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.

South Carolina is amending its standards for controlling NOX at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2—“Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).” The October 1, 2007, submittal makes the following changes to the NOX regulation at Section I—“Applicability,” and Section III—“Standard Requirements for New Sources”: (1) Clarifies applicability at paragraph I.a. by adding the state effective date of the regulation; (2) modifies the number of hours of operation for testing and maintenance for exempted emergency generators at subparagraph I.b.2.; (3) clarifies the exemption of combustion control devices at subparagraph I.b.4.; and (4) adds clarifying language to Section III at Table 1, “NOX Control Standards.”

CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Subparagraph I.B.2. extends the testing and maintenance operation threshold for exempted emergency generators from 250 hours to 500 hours per year. SC DHEC submitted supplemental information in support of its earlier SIP revision submittal in a December 20, 2016, letter to EPA. SC DHEC notes in its letter that it considered CAA section 110(l) in making this change and asserts that the State expects no increase in actual emissions as a result of raising this exemption threshold. SC DHEC explains that the 500 hours per year threshold is commonly used to determine the potential to emit for title V and other major source applicability determinations, consistent with EPA guidance.2 These sources are still restricted to use in emergency conditions. Additionally, SC DHEC points to applicable federal requirements for emergency generators at 40 CFR 63, subpart ZZZZ and 40 CFR 60 at subparts IIII and JJJJ, which restrict non-emergency use of these sources to 100 hours per year. SC DHEC also clarifies that peak shaving and other types of activities are not considered emergency activities, and so would not qualify for the exemption under paragraph II.B. Therefore, this change to subparagraph I.b.2. is not expected to result in any increase in emissions that would affect the State's ability to attain or maintain state or Federal standards or reasonable further progress.

The change at subparagraph I.b.4. clarifies the exemption for devices functioning solely as combustion control devices. The additional language specifies that these devices are not automatically excluded from the exemption if waste heat is recovered from them. This additional language is aimed at encouraging process efficiency and will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any Federal or state standard or reasonable further progress.

EPA has reviewed the October 1, 2007, SIP submittal, and is approving the aforementioned changes to Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(l).

In this rule, 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 South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5—“Volatile Organic Compounds,” effective November 27, 2015, which makes ministerial changes for consistency and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 5.2—“Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX),” effective May 25, 2007, which makes ministerial changes for consistency and modifies applicability for NOX control. 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 by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.3 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on October 1, 2007, June 17, 2013, and January 20, 2016, because they are consistent with the CAA and Federal regulations. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 15, 2017.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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. 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);

• 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 direct final action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action 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 October 16, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, August 12, 2015, July 27, 2016, and November 4, 2016, SC DHEC submitted SIP revisions to EPA for approval that involve changes to South Carolina's SIP regulations to make administrative and clarifying amendments, revise regulations, and correct typographical errors. These SIP submittals make changes to several air quality rules in South Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.). The changes EPA is approving into the SIP in this action modify portions of Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—Emissions From Fuel Burning Operations and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—Emissions From Process Industries. EPA is not acting on other revisions that are included in these submittals. EPA will act on those changes in separate actions.

South Carolina is amending multiple sections at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—Emissions from Fuel Burning Operations. The July 18, 2011, submittal revises subparagraph C of Section I —Visible Emissions by excluding natural gas fired units from maintaining an information log to determine periods of startup and shutdown. The August 12, 2015, submittal further revises the subparagraph adding propane fired units to the log keeping exception and corrects typographical errors in the Standard.

CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. SC DHEC considered CAA section 110(l) in making these changes and explains in a letter dated December 30, 2016, that the state expects no increase in actual emissions as a result of exempting units burning only natural gas and propane fuels from maintaining logs because there are no opacity concerns with these type of fuels during startup, shutdown, or normal operations. Because natural gas and propane contain relatively minor amounts of the constituents (particulate matter and sulfur) that could result in visible emissions, this change to subparagraph C will not result in any increase in emissions and will not affect the State's ability to attain or maintain state or federal standards or reasonable further progress.

The August 8, 2014, submittal makes the following changes: (1) Clarifies sulfur dioxide maximum allowable discharge limits at Section III—Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and (2) makes administrative and clarifying edits throughout Standard No. 1. The revision in Section III—Sulfur Dioxide Emissions streamlines the requirement by setting a maximum sulfur dioxide (SO2) limit of 2.3 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from fuel burning operations. The current approved Standard sets two SO2 limits, 2.3 lb/MMBtu or 3.5 lb/MMBtu across various classification categories. Therefore, this revision would streamline the rule to the lower of the two limits allowed for such sources. Lastly, this submittal makes administrative and clarifying edits in Section I —Visible Emissions, Section III—Sulfur Dioxide Emissions,Section IV—Opacity Monitoring Requirements, and Section VI—Periodic Testing.

The November 4, 2016, submittal makes typographical corrections under Section IV—Opacity Reporting Requirements. EPA has reviewed the aforementioned changes to South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1 and is approving the changes into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.

South Carolina is amending multiple sections at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—Emissions from Process Industries. The October 1, 2007, submittal removes Section IV—Portland Cement Manufacturing from the SIP. This rule contains particulate matter (PM) emission limits for cement kilns with a production rate of up to 120 tons per hour and it establishes a 20 percent allowable stack opacity limit for certain components of Portland cement plants. SC DHEC states that there are no Portland cement plants operating at 120 tons per hour or less in the State because it is not economically feasible. SC DHEC asserts that removing this rule would not create a relaxation as there are no applicable sources subject to this regulation. Additionally, should such a source start operation, it would be subject to more stringent PM emissions limits in New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart F (Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants).

The July 18, 2011, submittal amends Section V—Cotton Gins by removing established specific emission limits based on production rate (output) of bales of cotton per hour and replacing that with specific, measurable performance requirements and operating standards. SC DHEC considered CAA section 110(l) in making this change. SC DEHC explains that the rule development is based on best management practices outlined in the USDA's Cotton Ginners Handbook, staff experience with effective emission reduction techniques, the review of other state regulations on cotton gins, and several discussions with the affected industry. The new rule assures a greater degree of control of these emissions than that which would result from the existing process weight rate curve and also allows the state to more effectively determine compliance. The revised rule requires enforceable control of emissions from specific point sources in the ginning process rather than an allowable emission rate, and it establishes requirements to minimize fugitive emissions from various sources at cotton ginning facilities. The revised rule also sets applicable requirements for good housekeeping practices in the gin yard, weekly monitoring of control efficiency, recordkeeping, and reporting. The revised regulation will provide for improved emissions control through practicably enforceable control of emissions, use of state of the art pollution control devices, and minimization of fugitive emissions. The June 17, 2013, submittal makes a subsequent typographical correction to Section V.

The August 8, 2014, submittal makes the following changes: (1) Removes a PM emissions limit at Section III—Kraft Pulp and Paper Manufacturing; (2) revises the frequency required for reporting excess emissions at Section XI—Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills; (3) removes periodic testing requirement for Total Reduce Sulfur (TRS) at Section XII—Periodic Testing; and (4) makes administrative and clarifying edits throughout Standard No. 4. At Section III, the submittal removes the table column “Maximum Allowable Emissions of PM in pounds/equivalent Ton of Air Dried, Unbleached Pulp Produced” and retains the “Maximum Allowable Stack Opacity.” SC DEHC asserts that this will not result in a relaxation of emission limits because the subject sources are covered under more stringent PM limits under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (subpart S—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry). Additionally, the word “opacity” replaces “rate of emissions.”

At Section XI, the August 8, 2014, submittal revises the required excess emissions reporting frequency in subparagraph D.3. from quarterly to semi-annual. SC DHEC considered CAA sections 110(l) and 193 in making the revision and asserts changing reporting from quarterly to semi-annual will not affect the level of emissions or compromise the national ambient air quality standards. SC DHEC cites to several Federal and state regulations that address excess emissions reporting, including NSPS subpart BB Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4 Section XI(D)(3) Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills; South Carolina Regulations 61-62.1, Section II(J)(2) Permit Requirements; and South Carolina Regulation 61-62.70 Title V Operating Permit Program.

At Section XII, the August 8, 2014, submittal removes the periodic testing requirement for TRS at Kraft pulp mills.1 SC DHEC states that most sources are required to test under NSPS or NESHAP rules. The few sources that are not required to test have enough historical test data to develop an approvable operating range which can be handled during the permitting process. Additionally, the S.C. Pollution Control Act (48-1-50, Powers of the Department) makes provision for the SC DHEC to ask for a source test and permits are often drafted with language allowing the SC DEHC to ask for source tests. Therefore, the requirements will be no less stringent than what is allowed through current regulatory and permitting authority to review testing requirements.

Lastly, the August 8, 2014, submittal makes minor typographical, renumbering, and clarifying edits to Standard No. 4 in Section II—Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing, Section V—Cotton Gins, Section XI—Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills, and Section XII—Periodic Testing.

The July 27, 2016, submittal revises Section VIII—Other Manufacturing by excluding Kraft Pulp and Paper Manufacturing facilities. This Section sets PM emission for source categories not specified elsewhere in Standard No. 4. The revision to exclude Kraft Pulp and Paper Manufacturing facilities aligns with the August 8, 2014, revision, as previously discussed in this notice. The submittal also makes minor typographical, renumbering, and clarifying edits to Section XII —Periodic Testing.

EPA has reviewed the aforementioned changes to South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4 and is approving the revisions into the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.

In this rule, 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 South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1—Emissions From Fuel Burning Operations, effective September 23, 2016, which makes administrative and clarifying revisions for consistency, removes log reporting requirements, revises monitoring requirements, and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4—Emissions From Process Industries, effective June 24, 2016, which makes administrative and clarifying revisions for consistency, removes specific emission rates, and reporting requirements. 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 by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, August 12, 2015, July 27, 2016, and November 4, 2016 because they are consistent with the CAA and federal regulations. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 15, 2017.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:

• Are not significant regulatory actions 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);

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

• are 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.);

• do 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);

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

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

• are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• are 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

• do 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 direct final action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action 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 October 16, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are set forth in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 6, 2017 (82 FR 26007).

In our proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve and take no action on some infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications.1 In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications.

No comments were received on our June 6, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking.

For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we are taking no action on are reflected in Table 2.

A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements and new rules being approved into the South Dakota SIP through this final rule action are provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

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);

• 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 October 16, 2017. 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 CAA Section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area (Class I area) 1 within the state and each Class I area outside of the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On August 26, 2009, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.2

On February 29, 2016, VT DEC submitted a revision to the Vermont SIP detailing the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the Vermont's 2009 regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at the State's one Class I area, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. EPA is approving Vermont's February 29, 2016 SIP revision on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

On February 29, 2016, Vermont submitted its “Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report” (Progress Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.

Vermont is home to one Class I area, the Lye Brook Wilderness Area (Lye Brook). During the regional haze planning process, an area-of-influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories was used to assess Vermont's contribution to visibility impairment at Lye Brook and other Class I areas in other states.3 Based on this analysis, it was determined that Vermont does not influence visibility impairment at any Class I area, including Lye Brook. In the 2009 Vermont regional haze SIP, however, the State agreed to pursue the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) 4 to assure reasonable progress toward preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in the Class I areas within the MANE-VU region. These strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE-VU “Ask.” The MANE-VU “Ask” includes: a timely implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements; a 90 percent or more reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at 167 electrical generating units (EGUs) “stacks” identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures); a lower sulfur fuel oil strategy (with limits specified for each State); and continued evaluation of other control measures.5 Vermont is not home to any BART sources or targeted EGUs. However, Vermont has adopted a lower sulfur fuel oil strategy which is discussed in greater detail below.

This section includes EPA's analysis of Vermont's Progress Report SIP submittal, and an explanation of the basis of our approval.

In its Progress Report, Vermont describes its implementation of the MANE-VU “Ask” for the sulfur content of fuel oil. Vermont adopted the low-sulfur fuel oil strategy on September 28, 2011 in Vermont's Air Pollution Control Regulations (VT APCR) Section 5-221(1) to take effect in two phases. The first phase began on July 1, 2014, lowering the allowable concentration of sulfur in No. 2 and lighter distillate fuels to 0.05% (500 parts per million (ppm)) by weight. The second phase, to take effect on July 1, 2018, further lowers the sulfur limit for No. 2 and lighter distillate oils to 0.0015% (15 ppm) by weight, the sulfur limit for No. 4 residual oil to 0.25% (2,500 ppm) by weight, and the sulfur limit for No. 5 and No. 6 residual oils, heavier residual oils, and used oils to 0.5% (5,000 ppm) by weight. EPA has approved Vermont's Section 5-221(1) into the Vermont SIP. See 77 FR 30213 (May 22, 2012).

Vermont's Progress Report also includes the status of SO2 emission reductions from states that affect Class I areas in MANE-VU relative to the MANE-VU “Ask.” 6 Vermont consulted with states in the eastern United States that affect visibility at the Lye Brook Class I area, outlining how the states could meet the MANE-VU “Ask” and help achieve reasonable progress for the Class I area in Vermont and other MANE-VU States. These emission reductions were included in the modeling that predicted progress toward meeting the RPGs for Lye Brook. EPA finds that Vermont's summary of the status of the implementation of measures in its Progress Report adequately addresses the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g).

During the development of the regional haze SIP for the first planning period, MANE-VU and Vermont determined that SO2 was the greatest contributor to anthropogenic visibility impairment at the State's Class I area. Therefore, the bulk of visibility improvement achieved in the first planning period was expected to result from reductions in SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State. In its Progress Report SIP Table 7.3, Vermont presents data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the years 2002, 2008, 2011, and projected inventories for 2018 for SO2, Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).7 8 Vermont's emissions inventories include the following source sectors: point, area/nonpoint, on-road, and non-road. The Progress Report highlights that the total SO2 emissions from all sectors decreased from 7,293 tons per year (tpy) in 2002 to 3,450 tpy in 2011, i.e., approximately a 53% reduction. The annual SO2 emissions projection for 2018 is 3,493 tpy. VT DEC demonstrated that by 2011, Vermont had already achieved the SO2 emission reductions expected during the first regional haze planning period.

EPA finds that Vermont has adequately addressed the provision under 40 CFR 51.308(g). Vermont has detailed the SO2 reductions from the 2002 regional haze baseline by using the most recently available year of data at the time of the development of Vermont's Progress Report, which is 2011.

The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require that states with Class I areas within their borders provide information on current visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values.

Vermont is home to one Class I area, the Lye Brook Wilderness Area. From 1992 to 2012, VT DEC operated an Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program monitor on Mt. Equinox (LYBR1), near the Lye Brook Wilderness Area. In 2012, a second IMPROVE site was established on Mt. Snow in Dover, Vermont (LYEB1) due to the planned discontinuation of the Mt. Equinox site. Monitors at both sites collected data concurrently for a period of nine months. On the 20% best and worst days, the two sites were found to have a nearly one-to-one relationship. In the Progress Report, VT DEC provides the data in deciviews (dv) 9 for the baseline 2000-2004 five-year average visibility, the most recent 2010-2014 five-year average visibility, the 2018 RPG from Vermont's 2009 regional haze SIP, and the calculated visibility improvement.10 See Table 1.

I. Background and Purpose A. Call to States for Conformity SIP Revisions

In the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), Congress recognized that actions taken by federal agencies could affect a State, Tribal, or local agency's ability to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Congress added section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7506) to the CAA to ensure federal agencies' proposed actions conform to the applicable SIP, Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP), or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. That section requires federal entities to find that the emissions from the federal action will conform with the purposes of the SIP, TIP, or FIP or not otherwise interfere with the State's or Tribe's ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the provisions in section 176(c). Because certain provisions of section 176(c) apply only to highway and mass transit funding and approvals actions, EPA published two sets of regulations to implement section 176(c). The Transportation Conformity Regulations, (40 CFR part 51, subpart T, and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) first published on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), address federal actions related to highway and mass transit funding and approval actions. The conformity regulations have been revised numerous times since then.

When promulgated in 1993, the Federal Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 51.395 mandated that the transportation conformity SIP revisions incorporate several provisions of the rule in verbatim form, except insofar as needed to give effect to a stated intent in the revision to establish criteria and procedures more stringent than the requirements stated in these sections.

Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the CAA to ensure that federally-supported highway projects, transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (“conform to”) the purpose of the SIP. Transportation conformity currently applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, as well as those areas redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of the Act for the following transportation related pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

EPA has approved several revisions to the North Carolina SIP to incorporate transportation conformity requirements consistent with the Federal regulations. Initially, on December 27, 2002, EPA approved North Carolina's SIP revision to address consultation requirements and procedures which included memoranda of agreements for areas in North Carolina. See 67 FR 78983. On September 15, 2003, EPA approved the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization interagency transportation conformity memorandum of agreement. See 68 FR 53883. EPA also approved an update to North Carolina's transportation conformity requirements on December 26, 2013, to establish transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, conflict resolution, public participation, and enforceability of certain transportation related control measures and mitigation measures. See 78 FR 78272.

On March 24, 2006, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (now the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality) submitted a SIP revision to EPA to clarify the applicability of the State's transportation conformity rules. In this direct final rulemaking EPA is taking action to approve changes to regulation 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D, Section .2001, Purpose, Scope and Applicability. EPA has taken, will take, or, for various reasons, will not take separate action on all other revisions submitted on March 24, 2006.1

The State explained in its submission that North Carolina's rule, as previously written, could be read in two ways. One way is that transportation conformity rules apply to areas identified as nonattainment or maintenance areas by EPA in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or to areas listed in the rule. North Carolina explained the second way that their rule could be read is that transportation conformity rules apply only to areas identified as nonattainment or maintenance areas by the CFR and also identified in the rule. North Carolina explained that the State's intent is to apply transportation conformity rules to areas identified as nonattainment or maintenance areas by EPA in the CFR or to areas listed in the rule. North Carolina also updated its rule to clarify a vague statement in their previous rule that read that transportation conformity rules apply to areas “not in compliance with the primary standard.” The State replaced this language with a more specific reference to ozone and PM2.5 standards.

EPA has reviewed North Carolina's transportation conformity rule changes to ensure consistency with Federal transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. North Carolina's clarification that transportation conformity requirements apply to areas identified as nonattainment or maintenance areas by EPA in the CFR or to areas listed in the rule is consistent with the Federal transportation conformity requirements in that it does not require a change to the State's rules in order for the requirements to apply. Pursuant to CAA section 176(c) transportation conformity requirements are applicable in relevant nonattainment and maintenance areas without a rule change by the State to be in effect. Thus, EPA is taking direct final action to approve the aforementioned change to North Carolina's transportation conformity provisions as found at 15A NCAC 2D Section .2001. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's change in section (d) of 15A NCAC 2D Section .2001 to clarify the vague statement that transportation conformity requirements apply to apply to areas “not in compliance with the primary standard” by being more specific in identifying the applicable primary standards of PM2.5 and ozone. This change is consistent with Federal requirements that transportation conformity requirements do not apply in all areas “not in compliance with the primary standard” but only in nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related pollutants.2

In this rule, EPA is taking direct final action to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 15A NCAC Subchapter 2D, Section .2001, Purpose, Scope and Applicability, effective November 10, 2005, which incorporates by reference the Federal Transportation Conformity Rule that was restructured and amended on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14979). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, 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 by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.3 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the changes to the North Carolina SIP regarding the State's transportation conformity requirements. The approval of North Carolina's conformity SIP changes clarifies the State rules and is consistent with Federal transportation conformity requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 15, 2017.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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. 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);

• 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 October 16, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In this rulemaking, EPA is approving changes to the Alabama SIP, submitted by the State on May 19, 2017. The submission revises ADEM Rule 335-3-1-.02—Definitions and Rule 335-3-4-.08—Wood Waste Boilers. This rulemaking revises the definition of VOCs, corrects a typographical error and removes particulate emission and opacity limits for Talladega County.

Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react with sunlight in the atmosphere. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA limits the amount of VOCs and NOX that can be released into the atmosphere. VOCs are those compounds of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity; they do not react at the same speed or form ozone to the same extent.

EPA determines whether a given carbon compound has “negligible” reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to the reactivity of ethane. It has been EPA's policy that compounds of carbon with negligible reactivity need not be regulated to reduce ozone. See 42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977. EPA lists these compounds in its regulations at 40 CFR 51.100(s) and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals on this list are often called “negligibly reactive.” EPA may periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds to add or delete compounds.

On November 29, 2004,1 and August 1, 2016,2 EPA issued final rules revising the definition of VOCs by adding new compounds (tertiary butyl acetate (or t-Butyl acetate) and 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxyl) ethane) to the list of those that considered to be negligibly reactive compounds, and on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9339), EPA issued a final rule removing recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate. The State's May 19, 2017, SIP revision adds these compounds to the list of negligibly reactive compounds under ADEM Rule 335-3-1-.02 subpart (gggg). The SIP revision also removes the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements requirement for t-Butyl acetate. Additionally, the submittal makes a typographical correction under subpart (gggg)(iii). EPA proposes to approve these revisions because they are consistent with the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).

The State's addition of exemptions from the definition of VOCs and removal of recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-butyl acetate are approvable under section 110(l) because it reflects changes to Federal regulations based on findings that the exempted compounds are negligibly reactive. The typographical error correction makes ministerial changes for consistency.

Rule 335-3-4-.08—Wood Waste Boilers was adopted into the Alabama SIP on April 23, 1974 (39 FR 14338), to provide emission limits based on available control technologies and included a 0.30 grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) emissions limit for boilers burning a combination of wood waste and fossil fuels. On November 24, 1981 (46 FR 57484), EPA finalized a SIP revision allowing pulp mills to operate boilers that burn only wood waste in Talladega County. This change allowed a particulate matter emissions concentration of 0.45 gr/dscf when burning wood waste alone (but total emissions would remain the same provided boilers operate on a reduced rate). On July 11, 1986 (51 FR 25198), EPA approved a revision adding a new paragraph 3 at Rule 335-3-4-.08 that relaxed the allowable emission limit to 0.60 gr/dscf for wood waste boiler sources that operate up to 300 million British thermal unit per hour and tightened allowable emissions for other types of sources in Talladega County. Compliance with the emission limit was determined by an annual stack test. Additionally, an opacity limit of 76 percent was established and would be measured by a transmissometer.

The May 19, 2017, SIP revision removes paragraph 3, applicable only to sources in Talladega County, because the type of source no longer exists in the County or anywhere else in the State. Moreover, if such a source were to begin operating in the future, it would be subject to more stringent requirements under Rule 335-3-4-.08 paragraph 2.

EPA believes that these changes to the regulatory portion of the SIP are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meet the regulatory requirements pertaining to SIPs. Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The State's removal of emissions and opacity requirements for Talladega County is an approvable change under section 110(l) because, should these sources start operating, they would fall under more stringent rules in the SIP.

In this rule, 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 Rule 335-3-1-.02—Definitions and Rule 335-3-4-.08—Wood Waste Boilers, effective June 9, 2017. 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 by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.3 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of Alabama's May 19, 2017, submission submitted by the State of Alabama through ADEM. The submission revises Rule 335-3-1-.02—Definitions and Rule 335-3-4-.08—Wood Waste Boilers.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 15, 2017.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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. 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);

• 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 October 16, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 16, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-45), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announced the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E8469) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. This petition requested that 40 CFR 180.626 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of prothioconazole in or on imported commodities in the sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.2 ppm. This document referenced a summary of a petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which are available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the notice of filing.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for prothiconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerance established by this action.

In the Federal Register of November 10, 2016 (81 FR 78917) (FRL-9953-71), EPA established tolerances for residues of prothioconazole in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm and the cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.4 ppm. Because much of the safety assessment of prothioconazole for the current action remains the same, EPA is relying in part upon the findings made in the November 10, 2016 final rule in support of this action.

A summary of the toxicological profile and endpoints used for human risk assessment is discussed in Units III.A. and III.B of the November 10, 2016 final rule.

In evaluating dietary exposure for this action, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing prothioconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.626. The residue data used for the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments have not changed since the assessment supporting the November 10, 2016 final rule, except to incorporate the recommended tolerance on commodities associated with Sunflower subgroup 20B, for which the Agency assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated. For a summary of how EPA assessed these dietary exposures, see Unit III.C.1 of the November 10, 2016 final rule.

In addition, because the requested sunflower subgroup tolerance is not accompanied by a corresponding request for a U.S. registration for use of prothioconazole on the commodities in the sunflower subgroup, the drinking water and residential exposure assessments remain the same. A summary of EPA's assessment of drinking water exposure and residential exposure is discussed in Units III.C.2. and III.C.3.

A summary of EPA's conclusions about the cumulative effects of prothioconazole can be found in Unit III.C.4. of the November 10, 2016 final rule; however, since the November 10, 2016 final rule was published, the Agency has updated its dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP). The update was completed in association with registration requests for several triazole fungicides and includes, inter alia, the potential exposure to the common triazole metabolites resulting from the use of prothioconazole on commodities in the sunflower subgroup 20B. That analysis concluded that risk estimates were below the Agency's level of concern for all population groups. This assessment may be found on http://www.regulations.gov by searching for the following title and docket number: “Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Dietary (Food + Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment to Address the New Section 3 Registrations For Use of Difenoconazole on Rice and Cotton.” (located in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254).

Because there have been no changes to the potential for prenatal and postnatal toxicity or in the completeness of data with respect to toxicity and exposure, EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the additional tenfold (10×) margin of safety required under section 408(b)(2)(C) (“FQPA safety factor”) were reduced to 1×. A summary of EPA's rationale for this determination is discussed in Unit III.D. of the November 10, 2016 final rule.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure exists.

Using the exposure assumptions discussed above and in the November 10, 2016 final rule, EPA assessed acute and chronic dietary exposure from food and drinking water and concluded that the new tolerances on sunflower subgroup 20B do not change the risk estimates from the November 10, 2016 final rule. The acute dietary exposure utilized 40% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old at the 95th percentile. The chronic dietary exposure utilized 32% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, and 77% for all infants (<1 year), the most highly exposed population subgroup.

Because there are no existing or proposed residential uses for prothioconazole, there are no exposures expected via the residential exposure pathway. Therefore, all aggregate risk estimates are expected to be equivalent to dietary (food and drinking water) risk estimates mentioned above.

Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to prothioconazole residues.

For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer both to the November 10, 2016 final rule and its supporting documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722, and to the risk assessment for this current action “Prothioconazole: Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for a Tolerance Without U.S. Registration for Residues in/on sunflower subgroup 20B.” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286.

Adequate liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) methods are available for enforcing prothioconazole tolerances in crop and livestock commodities. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

There is currently a Codex MRL for sunflower/safflower established at 0.05 ppm. The U.S. EPA is establishing a tolerance on sunflower at 0.2 ppm to harmonize with a major trading partner, Canada, in order to have a harmonized North America MRL for the Sunflower subgroup 20B. A tolerance cannot be established at the lower Codex MRL because it would present a trade irritant for sunflower commodities coming into the United States.

Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of prothioconazole, in or on sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.2 parts ppm.

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

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

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0108 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 16, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0108, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11003) filed by SEPPIC INC., 30 TWO Bridges Road, Suite 210, Fairfield, New Jersey 07004. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) (CAS Reg. No. 688045-21-8). That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer's minimum number average MW of 1800 amu is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1).

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number average MW of fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) is 1800 amu. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1), EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1).

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1).

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of fatty acids, rape-oil, triesters with polyethylene glycol ether with glycerol (3:1) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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

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

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0259 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 16, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0259, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59165) (FRL-9950-22), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 6F8459) by CH Biotech R&D Co., LTD C/O Spring Trading Company, 203 Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, TX 77354. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1-triacontanol. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner James Yowell of Spring Trading Company, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

1-Triacontanol (TA), a long chain fatty alcohol (LCOH- C30), naturally occurs in plant, and insect waxes and constitutes a regular part of the human diet. As a pesticide, TA functions as a plant growth regulator. It promotes germination, root, stem and leaf growth, and flowering, as well as improving the seed, thus increasing plant production and quality. In terms of the mechanism of action, TA can be absorbed through the plant's stem and leaf, and may promote plant growth, increase accumulation of dry matter, improve the permeability of cell membrane, increase chlorophyll content, improve photosynthetic intensity, and increase activity of amylase, oxidase and peroxidase. With regard to its presence in insect wax, TA constitutes the majority of long chain fatty alcohols found in beeswax, naturally secreted through the bee's abdomen. In addition to the dietary consumption of TA from foods, humans are already exposed to 1-triacontanol because of its use in cosmetics, toiletries, surface lubricants, and pharmaceutical preparations; products that are broadly used across the consumer products industry with highest per person consumer exposures resulting from use in personal care products. For the pharmaceutical industry, there are overall health benefits such as anti-inflammatory and cholesterol lowering properties from the use of TA (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for 1-Triacontanol EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0259).

An aggregate risk assessment for TA for dietary (food and drinking water) exposures was not conducted as no toxicological endpoints have been identified in the toxicity database. EPA has determined under the FFDCA that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to TA.

There are no human health or environmental risks of concern associated with this assessment. Therefore, EPA has no objection to the registration of the proposed manufacturing use product, associated end use product, and an exemption from a food tolerance.

For a summary of the data upon which EPA relied, please refer to the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for 1-Triacontanol” (June 13, 2017), available in the docket for this action.

All applicable toxicology data requirements supporting the petition to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the use of TA as an active ingredient in or on food commodities, when used in accordance with label direction and good agricultural practices, have been fulfilled. Based on the submitted data and the results of studies using comparable long chain fatty alcohols, there are no human health risks of concern associated with TA and there is sufficient information to justify an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for this compound on all food commodities. Acute studies on TA show that this long chain fatty alcohol is Toxicology Category IV for: Acute oral toxicity, Acute dermal toxicity, Acute eye irritation, and Primary dermal irritation. TA is not a dermal sensitizer. Waivers were granted for subchronic toxicology studies including the 90-day Oral study, Developmental toxicity study, and Genetic toxicity testing based on existing scientific literature for structurally similar long chain fatty alcohols that demonstrate that fatty alcohols rapidly and readily become degradable and pose no risks to human health or to the environment.

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

An aggregate risk assessment for TA for dietary (food and drinking water) exposures was not conducted as no toxicological endpoints have been identified in the toxicity database.

Other non-occupational exposure to 1-triacontanol from pesticidal use is not expected to occur as the TA biodegrades rapidly and the product is applied at low application rates of 500 part per millions (ppm) three to four times per season. There are no residential uses for TA that would result in non-occupational exposure.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found TA to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and TA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that TA does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.

As part of its qualitative assessment, EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on TA and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA considers the toxicity database to be complete and has identified no residual uncertainty with regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity or exposure. No hazard was identified based on the available studies; therefore, EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or adults from TA. As a result, EPA concludes that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for 1-triacontanol.

Based on its assessment of 1-triacontanol, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to 1-triacontanol. Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of 1-triacontanol on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

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

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

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

During a recent quality review of the NFS to validate the accuracy and relevancy of its policy, guidance, and procedures, we discovered (1) an outdated reference to the NASA Acquisition Information System (NAIS) for posting agency business opportunities and (2) superseded titles to NASA directives. NASA posts all business opportunities through the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) via the Internet at http://www.fedbizopps.gov and agency directives are periodically reviewed and updated. This rule amends NFS 1852.215-77 and 1852.245-82 to remove the reference to the NAIS electronic posting system and update titles to NASA policy directives respectively.

NASA has not published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to make these nonsubstantive changes because they affect only the internal operating procedures of the Government and have no significant cost or administrative or cost impact on contractors or offerors. NASA does not anticipate opposition to the changes or significant adverse comments. However, if the Agency receives a significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This direct final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it makes nonsubstantive changes to Agency regulations. It merely removes from the NASA FAR Supplement a reference to the NASA Acquisition Information System (NAIS) posting system and updates titles to agency-level directives.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant NFS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 and therefore does not require publication for public comment.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1852 is amended as follows:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended by Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014). NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

The base quotas for the Harpoon category and Reserve category are 38.6 mt and 24.8 mt, respectively. See § 635.27(a). To date for 2017, NMFS has published two actions that have adjusted the available 2017 Reserve category quota, which currently is 78 mt (82 FR 12296, March 2, 2017, and 82 FR 12747, March 7, 2017). The 2017 Harpoon category fishery opened June 1 and is open through November 15, 2017, or until the Harpoon category quota is reached, whichever comes first.

Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories, after considering regulatory determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS has considered the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to the Harpoon category fishery. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:

Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by Harpoon category fishermen and provided by BFT dealers continue to provide valuable data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the Harpoon category would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.

NMFS also considered the catches of the Harpoon category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii) and (ix)). As of August 7, 2017, the Harpoon category has landed 35.0 mt. Commercial-size BFT are currently readily available to vessels fishing under the Harpoon category quota. Without a quota transfer at this time, Harpoon category participants would have to stop BFT fishing activities with very short notice, while commercial-sized BFT remain available in the areas Harpoon category permitted vessels operate. Transferring 30 mt of BFT quota from the Reserve category would result in a total of 68.6 mt being available for the Harpoon category for the 2017 Harpoon category fishing season.

Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota (here, the Harpoon category) to harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iii)), NMFS considered Harpoon category landings over the last several years. Landings are highly variable and depend on access to commercial-sized BFT and fishing conditions, among other factors. NMFS anticipates that the Harpoon category could harvest the transferred 30.0 mt prior to the end of the Harpoon category season, subject to weather conditions and BFT availability. NMFS may transfer unused Harpoon category quota to other quota categories, as appropriate. NMFS also anticipates that some underharvest of the 2016 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2017 and placed in the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations. Thus, this quota transfer would allow fishermen to take advantage of the availability of fish on the fishing grounds, consider the expected increases in available 2017 quota later in the year, and provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the full U.S. BFT quota.

NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2017 landings and dead discards. In the last several years, total U.S. BFT landings have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. NMFS will need to account for 2017 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do that.

This transfer would be consistent with the current quotas, which were established and analyzed in the 2015 BFT quota final rule (80 FR 52198, August 28, 2015), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full annual U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and Amendment 7, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)).

Based on the considerations above, NMFS is transferring 30.0 mt of the available 78 mt of Reserve category quota to the Harpoon category. Therefore, NMFS adjusts the Harpoon category quota to 68.6 mt for the 2017 Harpoon category fishing season (i.e., through November 15, 2017, or until the Harpoon category quota is reached, whichever comes first), and adjusts the Reserve category quota to 48.0 mt.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Harpoon category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting App. Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional action (i.e., quota and/or daily retention limit adjustment, or closure) is necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the quota transfer for the remainder of 2017 is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as such a delay would likely result in closure of the Harpoon fishery when the base quota is met and the need to re-open the fishery, with attendant administrative costs and costs to the fishery. The delay would preclude the fishery from harvesting BFT that are available on the fishing grounds and that might otherwise become unavailable during a delay. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For these reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under § 635.27(a)(9), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.