Federal Register Vol. 82, No.182,

On July 7, 2017 (82 FR 31433), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to renew, for an additional 40 years, the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1-6 of CoC No. 1007. The renewal requires cask users to establish, implement, and maintain written procedures for aging management program (AMP) elements, including a lead cask inspection program, for VSC-24 Storage Cask structures, systems, and components (SSCs) important to safety. Users must also conduct periodic “tollgate” assessments of new information on SSC aging effects and mechanisms to determine whether any element of an AMP addressing these effects and mechanisms requires revision to encompass the current state of knowledge. In addition, the renewal of the initial certificate and Amendment Nos. 1-6 makes several other changes, described the Federal Register notice for the direct final rule.

In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on September 20, 2017. The NRC did not receive any comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, this direct final rule will become effective as scheduled. The final CoC, Technical Specifications, and Safety Evaluation Report can be viewed in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17242A189.

Discussion

On June 19, 2017, we issued AD 2017-13-12, Amendment 39-18942 (82 FR 30949, July 5, 2017) (“AD 2017-13-12”), which applied to all Airbus Model A318 series airplanes and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2017-13-12 was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH), which indicates that the main landing gear (MLG) does not comply with certification specifications, which could result in a locking failure of the MLG side stay. AD 2017-13-12 required modification or replacement of certain MLG side stay assemblies. We issued AD 2017-13-12 prevent possible collapse of the MLG during takeoff and landing.

Since we issued AD 2017-13-12, we have received reports indicating that affected parties misinterpreted the applicability of the affected part numbers due to the formatting of figure 1 to paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) in the published version of AD 2017-13-12, which could result in a negative effect on compliance. Therefore, we have determined that clarification of the formatting of the published figure is necessary.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0018R1, dated September 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The EASA AD is referenced in AD 2017-13-12. EASA has not revised its AD since the issuance of AD 2017-13-12.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0809.

We have reviewed the following service information.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1429, Revision 01, dated February 29, 2016.

• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-315, dated April 24, 2015.

• Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201-32-63, dated April 24, 2015.

The service information describes procedures for modifying the MLG side stay assembly. The Messier-Bugatti-Dowty documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We are superseding AD 2017-13-12 to clarify the formatting of a figure in the regulatory text of the published AD. No other changes have been made to AD 2017-13-12. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0809; Product Identifier 2017-NM-094-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 959 airplanes of U.S. registry. This AD adds no new economic burden to AD 2017-13-12. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

The FAA'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 amend Class E airspace extending upward 700 feet above the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI.

The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 17158, April 10, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0181 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI. 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 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B 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 or more above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 7.2-mile radius) of Iowa County Airport, Mineral Point, WI. The 5.2-mile wide segment from the Mineral Point NDB extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the airport to 7.4 miles northeast is removed, due to the decommissioning and cancellation of the Mineral Point NDB, and NDB approaches. 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:

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 modifies Class D and E airspace at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY, in support of instrument flight rules operations at the airport.

On June 2, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 25561) Docket FAA-2016-9473, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, modifying Class E surface area airspace, and modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 and 1,200 feet above the surface at Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, Cheyenne, WY. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Cheyenne ILS locator outer marker, removal of the Cheyenne VORTAC from the airspace description, and the availability of diverse departure headings as the FAA transitions from ground-based navigation aids to satellite-based navigation. Class D airspace is amended by removing the segment on each side of the Cheyenne ILS localizer east course extending from the 5.6-mile radius to the outer marker.

Class E surface area airspace is amended to be coincident with the Class D airspace, and effective during the times the Class D is not in effect.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within an 8.1-mile radius (from 12.2 miles) of Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport, and within a 9.1-mile radius of the airport from the 240° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 300° bearing from the airport with a segment on each side of a 275° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 9.1-mile radius to 10.6 miles west of the airport, and with another segment on each side of the 028° bearing from the airport extending from the airport 8.1 mile radius to 10.8 miles northeast of the airport. The airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 43.6-mile radius of the airport (from a polygon of similar area) to provide controlled airspace for diverse departures until reaching the overlying Class E airspace.

Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to match the FAA's current aeronautical database. This action also updates the airport name to Cheyenne Regional/Jerry Olson Field Airport (from Cheyenne Airport). Finally, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions.

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

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

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 removes NOTAM part-time information for Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D at Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D, for Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA, as published in FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part-time status. This action makes the update.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, 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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the following language from the legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension at Lemoore NAS (Reeves Field), Lemoore, CA, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory”. This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

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 doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this regatta until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. We must establish this area by September 23, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with regatta from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017 will be a safety concern to anyone within waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at river mile 6.73. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the regatta occurs.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at river mile 6.73. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

The Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or a designated representative. A designated representative may be a Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer. Vessels will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake to a minimum, in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft and remain vigilant for event participants and safety craft. Additionally, vessels must yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and must follow directions given by the COTP or a designated representative. The rules contained in the above two sentences do not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties. Commercial vessels will have right-of-way over event participants and event safety craft. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or commercial traffic and will resume after the vessel has completed its passage through the regulated area. COTP or a designated representative may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regatta area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the U.S. COTP or a designated representative shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled must stop and comply with the orders of the COTP or a designated representative. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The COTP or a designated representative may establish vessel size and speed limitations and operating conditions and may restrict vessel operation within the regatta area to vessels having particular operating characteristics. The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property.

Patrol Commander means a Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to monitor a regatta area, permit entry into the regatta area, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the regatta area, and take other actions authorized by the COTP. The Patrol Commander will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the regulated area. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated area, which will impact a small designated area of the Maumee River from 5 a.m. through 6 p.m. on September 23, 2017. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the regulated area and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area.

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 area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 interval lasting from 5a.m. through 6 p.m., that will prohibit entry within waters of the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at river mile 4.30 to the Michael DiSalle Bridge at river mile 6.73. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(h) of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On April 13, 2017, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register titled Special Local Regulations and Safety Zone; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone, (82 FR 17782), proposing to update special local regulations and safety zones. There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action. No public comments or request for a public meeting were received during the NPRM process. Swim events, fireworks displays, and marine events are held on an annual recurring basis on the navigable waters within the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. In the past, the Coast Guard has established special local regulations, regulated navigation areas, and safety zones for these annual recurring events on a case by case basis to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with these events. In the past year, events were assessed for their likelihood to recur in subsequent years or to be discontinued. These events were added to or deleted from the tables accordingly. In addition, minor changes to existing events were made to ensure the accuracy of event details.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce administrative overhead, expedite public notification of events, and ensure the protection of the maritime public during marine events in the Sector Northern New England area.

We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The comment period for the NPRM associated with the Special Local Regulations and Safety Zone; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone expired on May 15, 2017. The first events are scheduled to occur June 16, 2017. Thus, there is now insufficient time for a 30 day effective period before the need to enforce this safety zone and special local regulations. Delaying the enforcement of this safety zone and special local regulations to allow a 30 day effective period would be impracticable.

The Coast Guard issues this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. This rule updates the tables of annual recurring events in the existing regulation for the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. The tables provide the event name, sponsor, and type, as well as approximate times, dates, and locations of the events. Advanced public notification of specific times, dates, regulated areas, and enforcement periods for each event will be provided through appropriate means, which may include, the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and a Notice of Enforcement published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the event date. If an event does not have a date and time listed in this regulation, then the precise dates and times of the enforcement period for that event will be announced through a Local Notice to Mariners and, if time permits, a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register.

As noted above, we received no comments to the NPRM published April 13, 2017. The single change from the NPRM is the modification of one position to the Colchester Triathlon held in Colchester, VT. The Coast Guard has adjusted a mistake to a position made in the NPRM that went unnoticed until after publication in the Federal Register.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and for promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reason: The Coast Guard is only modifying existing regulations to account for new information.

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 waters 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.

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 made a preliminary determination 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 water activities including swimming events, boat races, and fireworks displays. The regulatory actions related to these activities are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)(Safety Zones) and (34)(h)(Special Local Regulations) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this finding 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 parts 100 and 165 as follows:

The Margate Bridge Company, owner and operator of the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge that carries Margate Boulevard across the NJICW (Beach Thorofare), mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to facilitate urgent maintenance of the structural steel of the bascule spans of the double bascule drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited clearance in the open position.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on Monday, September 18, 2017, through 7 p.m. on Sunday, September 24, 2017, and from 7 a.m. on Monday, October 2, 2017, through 7 p.m. on Sunday, October 8, 2017.

The Beach Thorofare is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels will not be able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position, as two construction barges will be occupying the navigation channel during the closure periods. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 9 a.m. through 11 a.m. on October 1, 2017, to allow the community to participate in the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation One Walk event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

On April 25, 2017, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Canaveral Barge Canal, Canaveral, FL in the Federal Register (82 FR 18989). Under that temporary deviation, the bridge would remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. On September 14, 2017, the Coast Guard received a request from Florida Department of Transportation the bridge owner, on behalf of the Port of Canaveral and Brevard County Emergency Operations Commission to modify the bridge operation schedule. This temporary deviation would suspend this prior action and allow the bridge to open on demand from 6 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., noon to 2 p.m., 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and 9 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. daily.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass through the bridge in closed positions. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On July 27, 2017, Sector Northern New England was made aware of the Route 73 Weskeag Bridge replacement project, which spans the Weskeag River in South Thomaston, Maine. The COTP Sector Northern New England has determined that the potential hazards associated with the bridge replacement project will be a safety concern for anyone within the work area.

The project is scheduled to begin on October 1, 2017 and be completed by December 1, 2017. During this project, removal and replacement of the bridge will take place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The safety zone will be enforced during different periods during the bridge demolition or when other hazards to navigation arise during the new bridge construction. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) 24 hours in advance to any period of enforcement or as soon as practicable in response to an emergency. If the project is completed prior to December 1, 2017, enforcement of the safety zone will be suspended and notice given via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The late finalization of project details did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before the construction work is set to begin. It would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay promulgating this rule as it is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the bridge replacement project beginning on October 1, 2017.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, delaying the implementation of this rule would be impractical.

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Sector Northern New England has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge replacement project starting on October 1, 2017 and continuing through December 1, 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within the work zone. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within the safety zone while the bridge replacement project is completed.

This rule establishes a safety zone from October 1, 2017 through December 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters from surface to bottom of 50 yards to either side of the Weskeag Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended to protect people, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the bridge replacement project. When enforced, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any scheduled enforcement period. The regulatory text we are enforcing appears at the end of this document.

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

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

The Coast Guard has determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the Weskeag River, (2) the zone will only be enforced when work equipment will be placed in the navigable channel during removal and replacement of the bridge or if necessitated by an emergency, (3) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector Northern New England or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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 safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A., this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 temporary safety zone that will prohibit entry within 50 yards of the Weskeag Bridge during its removal and replacement. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration for Categorically Excluded Actions will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard preceded this final rule with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2017, (82 FR 39972). We invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to work on power lines extending over the Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA. The NPRM listed dates and times of enforcement of the safety zone. During the comment period that ended September 7, 2017, we received one comment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display from 7:50 p.m. to 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017 will present a safety concern for all navigable waters on the Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 96.0 and MM 96.5. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life and vessels on the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

During the comment period, one comment was received. The commenter made a general statement that he or she was against “safe spaces”. The commenter did not indicate if he or she was against the proposed safety zone or the reasons for it. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The rule establishes a safety zone from 7:50 p.m. through 8:50 p.m. on October 28, 2017. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between MM 96.0 and 96.5 on the Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of life and vessels on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety zone will be enforced for a period of one hour on one day on one half of one mile of navigable waters. Vessel traffic will be able to safely navigate through the affected area before and after the scheduled event. Entry into the safety zones established through this rulemaking may be requested from the COTP or a designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-case.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 safety zone lasting one hour on one day extending one half of one mile that will prohibit entry on all navigable waters of the Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 96.0 and MM 96.5. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. 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:

• Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of this rule on or after October 23, 2017 are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

EPA is promulgating these SNURs using direct final procedures. These SNURs will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture or processing of a chemical substance for any activity designated by these SNURs as a significant new use. Receipt of such notices allows EPA to assess risks that may be presented by the intended uses and, if appropriate, to regulate the proposed use before it occurs. Additional rationale and background to these rules are more fully set out in the preamble to EPA's first direct final SNUR published in the Federal Register issue of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376). Consult that preamble for further information on the objectives, rationale, and procedures for SNURs and on the basis for significant new use designations, including provisions for developing test data.

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(i)). TSCA furthermore prohibits such manufacturing or processing from commencing until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)(ii)). As described in Unit V., the general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.

General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA must either determine that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury or take such regulatory action as is associated with an alternative determination before the manufacture or processing for the significant new use can commence. If EPA determines that the significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to make public, and submit for publication in the Federal Register, a statement of EPA's findings.

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

• The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

• The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 37 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 37 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:

• PMN number.

• Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (if assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).

• Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) consent order or, for non-TSCA section 5(e) SNURs, the basis for the SNUR (i.e., SNURs without TSCA section 5(e) consent orders).

• Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VIII. for more information).

• CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.

The regulatory text section of this rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits (i.e., limits on manufacture volume) and other uses designated in this rule, may be claimed as CBI. Unit IX. discusses a procedure companies may use to ascertain whether a proposed use constitutes a significant new use.

This rule includes 6 PMN substances that are subject to “risk-based” consent orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) where EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Those consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The so-called “TSCA section 5(e) SNURs” on these PMN substances are promulgated pursuant to § 721.160, and are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders. The TSCA section 5(e) SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent orders.

Where EPA determined that the PMN substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health via inhalation exposure, the underlying TSCA section 5(e) consent order usually requires, among other things, that potentially exposed employees wear specified respirators unless actual measurements of the workplace air show that air-borne concentrations of the PMN substance are below a New Chemical Exposure Limit (NCEL) that is established by EPA to provide adequate protection to human health. In addition to the actual NCEL concentration, the comprehensive NCELs provisions in TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, which are modeled after Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) provisions, include requirements addressing performance criteria for sampling and analytical methods, periodic monitoring, respiratory protection, and recordkeeping. However, no comparable NCEL provisions currently exist in 40 CFR part 721, subpart B, for SNURs. Therefore, for these cases, the individual SNURs in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E, will state that persons subject to the SNUR who wish to pursue NCELs as an alternative to the § 721.63 respirator requirements may request to do so under § 721.30. EPA expects that persons whose § 721.30 requests to use the NCELs approach for SNURs are approved by EPA will be required to comply with NCELs provisions that are comparable to those contained in the corresponding TSCA section 5(e) consent order for the same chemical substance.

This rule also includes SNURs on 31 PMN substances that are not subject to consent orders under TSCA section 5(e). These cases completed Agency review prior to June 22, 2016. Under TSCA, prior to the enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on June 22, 2016, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN triggered the determinations set forth under TSCA section 5(e). However, EPA does believe that certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” These so-called “non-TSCA section 5(e) SNURs” are promulgated pursuant to § 721.170. EPA has determined that every activity designated as a “significant new use” in all non-TSCA section-5(e) SNURs issued under § 721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in § 721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities, “(i) are different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of activities to the premanufacture notice, and (ii) may be accompanied by changes in exposure or release levels that are significant in relation to the health or environmental concerns identified” for the PMN substance.

Chemical name: Ethylene glycol ester of an aromatic substituted propenoic acid (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a modifier for polyester polymer. Based on structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis of test data on structurally similar substances, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms at concentrations that exceed 10 parts per billion (ppb) of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases to surface waters of the PMN substance are not expected to exceed 10 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 10 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPTS) Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10961.

Chemical name: Phosphoric acid, metal salt (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used as a flame retardant for textiles. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous substances, EPA identified eye and dermal irritation as well as immunotoxicity concerns to workers from exposure to the PMN substance via the inhalation route. Additionally, based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous inorganic phosphates, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 5 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. For the use described in the PMN, significant releases of the substance are not expected, and worker dermal and inhalation will be minimal. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that substantial production volume increases, or use of the PMN substance other than as described in the PMN, could change exposure potential, which may cause significant adverse health and environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day oral toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3100); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. EPA also recommends that the guidance document on aquatic toxicity testing of difficult substances and mixtures (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guideline 23) be followed to facilitate solubility in the test media.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10962.

Chemical name: Alkanoic acid, tetramethylheteromonocycle ester (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as an additive component to engine lubricants. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines and esters, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 2 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 2 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 2 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10963.

Chemical name: Polyether polyester urethane phosphate (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as an additive. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous inorganic phosphates, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 5 ppb of the substance in surface waters for greater than 20 days per year. This 20-day criterion is derived from partial life cycle tests (daphnid chronic and fish early life stage tests) that typically range from 21 to 28 days in duration. EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur if releases of the substance to surface water exceed releases from manufacturing, processing, and use levels described in the PMN. For the manufacturing, processing, and use operations described in the PMN, environmental releases did not exceed 5 ppb for more than 20 days per year. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. However, EPA has determined that, if in the future there is domestic manufacture, the use changes from that described in the PMN, or if the production volume increases substantially, the potential for release to the environment may change correspondingly and can result in significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500), with the PMN substance substituted for the phosphate nutrient in the algal growth medium, would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10964.

Chemical name: Propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyl-.

CAS number: 35123-06-9.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a solvent in pesticide formulations and solvent for fertilizers. Based on test data on the PMN substance, EPA identified concerns for solvent neurotoxicity, blood and liver toxicity, kidney effects, and developmental toxicity. For the uses described in the PMN, EPA does not expect significant dermal or inhalation occupational exposures, nor does it expect consumer exposures. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however that any use of the substance other than as described in the PMN, any use of the PMN substance without the use of dermal protection, where there is a potential for dermal exposures; or any use of the PMN substance in consumer products may cause serious human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(i).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a dermal penetration test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.7600) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10965.

Chemical name: 1-Propene, 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoro-.

CAS number: 1514-82-5.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: March 7, 2016.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the PMN substance will be used as a fire extinguishing agent for: Portable extinguishers (onboard aviation and all nonresidential); niche systems (aircraft, normally unoccupied systems, self-contained automatic fire extinguishing systems); and streaming systems for aircraft rescue fire fighting vehicles. Based on test data on the PMN substance, EPA predicts reproductive effects to unprotected workers from repeated inhalation exposures. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health. To protect against these risks, the consent order requires:

1. Use of personal protective equipment including a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 10 or compliance with a NCEL of 1.0 parts per million (ppm) as an 8-hour time-weighted average, when there is a potential for inhalation exposures.

2. Hazard communication. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health precautionary statements on each label and in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS).

3. No domestic manufacture of the PMN substance.

4. Processing (including filling of hand-held fire extinguishers or fire extinguishing systems) of the PMN substance in an enclosed process.

5. Use only as either (1) total flooding agent in unoccupied spaces, specifically engine nacelles and auxiliary power units (APUs) in aircraft; or (2) streaming fire extinguishing agent for use only in handheld extinguishers in aircraft.

The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that inhalation monitoring data, collected according to the EPA draft Inhalation Monitoring Data Collection Guidelines (located in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0331 would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance. The Order's restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal will remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10966.

Chemical name: Pyrolysis oil product (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: May 4, 2016.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as an on-site coolant and petroleum feed-stock. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous benzene and alkyl benzenes, EPA identified concerns for oncogenicity, neurological effect, and blood toxicity to unprotected workers from repeated inhalation exposures. Further, based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous neutral organic chemicals, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 20 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the consent order requires:

1. Use of personal protective equipment including impervious gloves (where there is a potential for dermal exposures) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 10 (where there is a potential for dermal or inhalation exposures) or compliance with a NCEL of 0.5 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average.

2. Manufacture, processing, or use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order.

3. No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters concentrations that exceed 20 ppb.

The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a developmental neurotoxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.6300) with a complete blood count and differential for white blood cells; inhalation monitoring data, collected according to the EPA draft Inhalation Monitoring Data Collection Guidelines (located in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0331; a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1010) and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. The Order's restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal will remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10967.

Chemical name: 1-Octanamine, 7 (or 8)-(aminomethyl)-.

CAS number: 1613320-81-2.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance is used as a raw material for highly heat resistant plastic. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 123 parts per billion of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance during the use described in the PMN are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 123 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance for the use described in the PMN may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 123 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10968.

Chemical name: Substituted alkanolamine ether (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: March 3, 2016.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the substance will be used as a hydrogen sulfide scavenger. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based on a finding that the substance may be produced in substantial quantities and may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities, and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substance. Based on this finding, the consent order requires:

1. Risk notification. If as a result of the test data required, the company becomes aware that the PMN substances may present a risk of injury to human health or the environment, the company must incorporate this new information, and any information on methods for protecting against such risk into an SDS, within 90 days.

2. Submission of certain toxicity, physical-chemical property, and environmental fate testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limits as specified in the consent order.

The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these measures.

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of certain toxicity and environmental fate testing would help characterize the PMN substance. The submitter has agreed to complete the testing identified in the testing section of the consent order by the confidential limits specified.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10969.

Chemical name: Butanedioic acid, alkyl amine, dimethylbutyl ester (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: February 8, 2016.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the substance will be used as an additive to engine motor oil. Based on physical-chemical properties data, EPA predicts that the PMN substance will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate or biomagnify, and could be toxic (PBT) to people, wild mammals, and birds. Further, based on test data on the PMN, as well as SAR analysis of analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i), 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II) based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment and human health, the substance may be produced in substantial quantities and may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities, and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substance. To protect against these exposures and risks, the consent order requires:

1. Risk notification. If as a result of the test data required, the company becomes aware that the PMN substances may present a risk of injury to human health or the environment, the company must incorporate this new information, and any information on methods for protecting against such risk into an SDS, within 90 days.

2. Submission of certain toxicity, physical-chemical property, and environmental fate testing on the PMN substance prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limits as specified in the consent order.

3. No releases of the PMN substance into the waters of the United States.

The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of certain toxicity and environmental fate testing would help characterize the PMN substance. The submitter has agreed to complete the testing identified in the testing section of the consent order by the confidential limits specified. In addition, EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance. The Order's restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal will remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10970.

Chemical name: Carbon nanotube (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: January 15, 2016.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the PMN substance will be in filtration media. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates and carbon nanotubes, EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity. Based on test data for other carbon nanotubes EPA identified concerns for environmental toxicity. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the consent order requires:

1. Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure).

2. Processing and use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order.

3. Processing and use of the PMN substance only as an aqueous slurry, wet form, or a contained dry form as described in the PMN.

4. No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters and disposal of the PMN substance only by landfill or incineration.

The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that a two-year inhalation bioassay (OPPTS 870.4200); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize possible health and environmental effects of the substance. Although the Order does not require these tests, the Order's restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal will remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10971.

Chemical name: Metal salt of mineral acid, reaction products with alumina, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide oxide (Al(OH)O), silica, titanium oxide (TiO2) and 3-(triethoxysilyl)-1-propanamine (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as an industrial paper additive. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates, EPA identified concerns for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload. As described in the PMN, inhalation is expected to be minimal for this use. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance other than as identified in the PMN may result in serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10972.

Chemical names: Halogenated bisphenol A, polymer with epichlorohydrin, alkenoate (generic) (P-15-766) and Halogenated bisphenol A, polymer with bisphenol A diglycidyl ether and epoxidized phenol-formaldehyde resin, alkenoate (generic) (P-15-767).

CAS numbers: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be as resins for flame retardant polyester. Based on test data on the confidential impurity of the PMN substance, EPA identified concerns for chronic toxicity effects to workers and the general population exposed to the PMN substances. Further, based on the confidential impurity, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 20 ppb of the impurity in surface waters. As described in the PMNs, EPA does not expect significant occupational exposures, general population exposures, nor releases of the substance to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 20 ppb of the impurity in surface waters. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any consumer use, any use other than as described in the PMNs, or any increase in production volume over 10,000 kg/yr may result in serious human health and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(5)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a combined repeated dose toxicity test (OECD Test Guideline 422) with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test; a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substances.

CFR citations: 40 CFR 721.10973 (P-15-766) and 40 CFR 721.10974 (P-15-767).

Chemical name: Silicon, tris[dialkyl phenyl]-dialkyl-dioxoalkane-naphthalene disulfonate (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as an ink additive. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous diketones, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 6 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance during the use described in the PMN are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 6 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance for the use described in the PMN may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 6 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a ready biodegradability test (OECD Test Guideline 301); a fish early-life state toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10975.

Chemical name: Tar acids fraction (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a polymer. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous phenols, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 45 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance during the use described in the PMN are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 45 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance for the use described in the PMN may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 45 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life state toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10976.

Chemical names: Dialkyl fattyalkylamino propanamide alkylamine (generic) (P-16-59) and Fattyalkylaminopropanoate ester (generic) (P-16-60).

CAS numbers: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMNs state that the substances will be used as chemical intermediates. Based on data on the PMN substances, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substances in surface waters. As described in the PMNs, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substances resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances.

CFR citations: 40 CFR 721.10977 (P-16-59) and 40 CFR 721.10978 (P-16-60).

Chemical Name: Boron sodium oxide (B5NaO8), labeled with boron-10.

CAS Number: 200443-98-7.

Basis for Action: The PMN states that this substance is to be used as an emergency shutdown coolant in boiling water reactors. Based on test data for boron compounds, the EPA identified potential human health concerns regarding reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and blood effects from exposure to the PMN substance via inhalation exposure. Further, based on SAR analysis of test data on boron compounds, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1,240 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters for greater than 20 days per year. This 20-day criterion is derived from partial life cycle tests (daphnid chronic and fish early life stage tests) that typically range from 21 to 28 days in duration. EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur if releases of the substance to surface water, from uses other than as described in the PMN, exceed releases from the use described in the PMN. For the use described in the PMN, inhalation and dermal exposures are expected to be minimal and environmental releases did not exceed 1,240 ppb for more than 20 days per year. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance other than as listed in the PMN may result in serious human health and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended Testing: EPA has determined that the results of a reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test (OPPTS 870.3550/OECD Test Guideline 421); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010); and algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR Citation: 40 CFR 721.10979.

Chemical name: Perfluoropolyether modified organosilane (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used as a stain-proof coating agent for touch panel. Based on physical-chemical properties data on the PMN substance, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous perfluorinated chemicals and potential perfluorinated degradation products, EPA identified concerns for irritation to skin, eyes, lungs, mucous membranes, lung toxicity, liver toxicity, blood toxicity, male reproductive toxicity, immunosupression, and oncogenicity. EPA has concerns that these degradation products will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate or biomagnify, and could be toxic (PBT) to people, wild mammals, and birds. EPA predicts adverse effects to human health and the environment may occur if releases of the PMN substance to surface water at production volumes higher than described in the PMN exceed the releases expected from the production volume described in the PMN. For the described production volume in the PMN, significant environmental releases are not expected.

Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any substantial combined production volume increase could result in exposures which may cause serious human health and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(1)(i)(D), (b)(3)(iii), and (b)(4)(iv).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of an indirect photolysis screening test: Sunlight photolysis in waters containing dissolved humic substances (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.5270), and simulation tests to assess the primary and ultimate biodegradability of chemicals discharged to wastewater (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.3280/OECD Test Guideline 314) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10980.

Chemical name: Modified phenol-formaldehyde resin (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a flame retardant additive. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous neutral organics, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 96 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. Further, based on the alcohol groups, EPA has concern for irritation to eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 96 ppb and exposures to workers and general population are minimal due to the use as a flame retardant additive. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance other than as stated in the PMN or any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 96 ppb may result in serious human health and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of an acute toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.1000); a repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3050) in rodents; a bacterial reverse mutation test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.5100); a mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.5395); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10981.

Chemical name: Disubstituted benzene alkanal (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a component for household products, including cleaning, fabric and air care. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous structurally similar substances, EPA identified concerns for developmental toxicity from dermal exposures of the PMN substance to workers and consumers. For the use described in the PMN, dermal exposures are not expected based on the use of impervious gloves, and consumer dermal exposures are expected to be minimal. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the PMN substance without the use of dermal protection, where there is a potential for dermal exposures, or any use of the PMN substance other than for the use specified in the PMN may result in serious human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that results of a 90-day oral toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3100) in rats via the gavage route, and a developmental toxicity test OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3650) in rats via the gavage route would help characterize the effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10982.

Chemical name: Phthalic anhydride, polymer with alkylene glycol and alkanepolyol, acrylate (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a coating component. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous acrylates, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance during the use described in the PMN are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance for the use described in the PMN may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a water solubility test (OPPTS Test Guideline 830.7840, a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1010); and algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500); would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10983.

Chemical name: 2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4,5-dichloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)-.

CAS number: 1546765-39-2.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a feed stock for an intermediate. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous halopyridines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 8 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. Further, based on the acid moiety, EPA has concern for irritation to eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 8 ppb and exposures to workers and general population are minimal due to the use as an intermediate. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance other than as an intermediate or any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 8 ppb may result in serious human health and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of an acute toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.1000); a repeated dose 28-day oral toxicity study (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3050) in rodents; a bacterial reverse mutation test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.5100); a mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.5395); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10984.

Chemical names: Dialkylamino alkylamide inner salt (generic).

CAS numbers: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of these substances is in oil production. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substances in surface waters. As described in the PMNs, releases of these substances are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substances resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a mysid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1350); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances. Testing should be conducted on PMN substance P-16-139.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10985.

Chemical name: Nanocarbon (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: June 21, 2016.

Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the substance will be used as an additive to composite materials. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates and nanocarbon materials, EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity. Based on test data for other nanocarbon materials EPA identified concerns for environmental toxicity. The Order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment. To protect against these risks, the consent order requires:

1. Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure).

2. Submission of a dustiness test within six months of notice of commencement.

3. Submission of a 90-day chronic inhalation study prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limit specified in the consent order.

4. Processing and use of the PMN substance only for the use specified in the consent order including no application method that generates a vapor, mist or aerosol unless the application method occurs in an enclosed process.

5. No use of the PMN substance resulting in releases to surface waters and disposal of the PMN substance only by landfill or incineration.

The SNUR would designate as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the development of data on certain physical-chemical properties, as well as certain human health and environmental toxicity testing would help characterize possible effects of the substance. The submitter has agreed to provide a dustiness test (European Standard EU 15051) by six months from commencement of manufacture. In addition, the submitter has agreed not to exceed the confidential production limit without performing a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465 or OECD Test Guideline 413) in rats with a post-exposure observation period of up to 9 months (including BALF analysis, a determination of cardiovascular toxicity (clinically-based blood/plasma protein analyses), and histopathology of the heart). Although the order does not require a two-year inhalation bioassay (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.4200), a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300), a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400), or an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500), the Order's restrictions on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal will remain in effect until the Order is modified or revoked by EPA based on submission of this or other relevant information.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10986.

Chemical name: Barium molybdenum niobium tantalum tellurium vanadium zinc oxide.

CAS number: 1440529-21-4.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a glass coating. Based on SAR analysis of test data on the analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates, EPA identified concerns for lung effects to workers exposed to the PMN substance. As described in the PMN, worker exposure will be minimal due to the use of adequate respiratory protection. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance without a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirators with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 10, where there is potential respiratory exposure, any use other than in the PMN, or domestic manufacture may result in serious human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day subchronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) via the inhalation route with a 60-day holding period would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10987.

Chemical name: Alkanoic acids, esters with alkanetriol (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a grease. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous esters, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10988.

Chemical names: Manganese, tris[.mu.-(2-ethylhexanoato-.kappa.O:.kappa.O')]bis(octahydro-1,4,7-trimethyl-1H-1,4,7-triazonine-.kappa.N1,.kappa.N4,.kappa.N7)di- (P-16-182, chemical A); Manganese, [.mu.-(acetato-.kappa.O:.kappa.O')]bis[.mu.-(2-ethylhexanoato-.kappa.O:.kappa.O')]bis(octahydro-1,4,7-trimethyl-1H-1,4,7-triazonine-.kappa.N1,.kappa.N4,.kappa.N7)di- (P-16-182, chemical B); Manganese, bis[.mu.-(acetato-.kappa.O:.kappa.O')][.mu.-(2-ethylhexanoato-.kappa.O:.kappa.O')]bis(octahydro-1,4,7-trimethyl-1H-1,4,7-triazonine-.kappa.N1,.kappa.N4,.kappa.N7)di- (P-16-182, chemical C); and Manganese, tris[.mu.-(acetato-.kappa.O:.kappa.O')]bis(octahydro-1,4,7-trimethyl-1H-1,4,7-triazonine-.kappa.N1,.kappa.N4,.kappa.N7)di- (P-16-182, chemical D).

CAS numbers: 2020407-62-7 (P-16-182, chemical A); 2020407-63-8 (P-16-182, chemical B); 2020407-64-9 (P-16-182, chemical C); and 2020407-65-0 (P-16-182, chemical D).

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be as resins. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous compounds, EPA identified concerns for systemic effects to the thyroid and pituitary gland, liver toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and mutagenicity. There are also concerns for immunotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, blood effects, and kidney toxicity, and uncertain concerns for asthma and oncogenicity, based on manganese, and concerns for developmental toxicity for branched acid hydrolysis products, by analogy to valproic acid and other acids that are branched on the carbon adjacent to the acid group, all based on exposure to the PMN substances via inhalation or dermal exposure. As described in the PMN, exposure is expected to be minimal due to negligible inhalation exposures and use of adequate dermal personal protection equipment. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any domestic manufacture; any manufacture of the PMN substances at a concentration greater than 10% in any formulation; or any use of the PMN substances without the use of chemical impervious gloves, where there is a potential for dermal exposures may result in serious human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at 40 CFR 721.170(b)(3)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a combined repeated dose toxicity reproduction/development toxicity screening test (OECD Test Guideline 422) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substances.

CFR citations: 40 CFR 721.10989 (P-16-182, chemical A), 40 CFR 721.10990 (P-16-182, chemical B), 40 CFR 721.10991 (P-16-182, chemical C), and 40 CFR 721.10992 (P-16-182, chemical D).

Chemical name: Aryl polyolefin (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a lubricant. Based on analogy to C10-13 alkyl derivatives of benzene, EPA identified concerns for reproductive and developmental toxicity to workers exposed to the PMN substance based on exposure to the PMN substance via dermal exposure. As described in the PMN, exposure is expected to be minimal due to use of adequate dermal personal protection equipment. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance other than as described in the PMN, or any use without the use of dermal protection where there is a potential for dermal exposures may cause serious human health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at 40 CFR 721.170(b)(3)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a two-generation reproduction toxicity test (OECD Test Guideline 416) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10993.

Chemical name: Melamine nitrate (generic).

CAS number: Not available.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is as a gas generant for automobile air bag inflators. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous melamines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 14 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance during the use described in the PMN are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 14 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance for the use described in the PMN may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 14 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10994.

Chemical name: Lecithins, soya, hydrogenated.

CAS number: 308068-11-3.

Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance is an ingredient in a formulated product. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous amphoteric surfactants, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance during the use described in the PMN are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance for the use described in the PMN may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1010); an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1400); and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10995.

During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for 6 of the 37 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. The SNUR provisions for these chemical substances are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. These SNURs are promulgated pursuant to § 14;721.160 (see Unit VI.).

In the other 31 cases, where the uses are not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 14;721.170 were met, as discussed in Unit IV.

EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule:

• EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

• EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

• EPA will be able to either determine that the prospective manufacture or processing is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, or to take necessary regulatory action associated with any other determination, before the described significant new use of the chemical substance occurs.

• EPA will ensure that all manufacturers and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.

Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule, as described in § 14;721.160(c)(3) and § 14;721.170(d)(4). In accordance with § 14;721.160(c)(3)(ii) and § 14;721.170(d)(4)(i)(B), the effective date of this rule is November 20, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments before October 23, 2017.

If EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs before October 23, 2017, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date. EPA will then issue a proposed SNUR for the chemical substance(s) on which adverse or critical comments were received, providing a 30-day period for public comment.

This rule establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in the comment.

To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.

When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders have been issued for 6 chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders from undertaking activities which would be designated as significant new uses. The identities of 26 of the 37 chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential and EPA has received no post-PMN bona fide submissions (per §§ 720.25 and 721.11). Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses described in the regulatory text of this rule are ongoing.

Therefore, EPA designates June 1, 2017 which is the date of public release by posting on EPA's Web site, as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. This designation varies slightly from EPA's past practice of designating the date of Federal Register publication as the date for making this determination. The objective of EPA's approach has been to ensure that a person could not defeat a SNUR by initiating a significant new use before the effective date of the direct final rule. In developing this rule, EPA has recognized that, given EPA's practice of now posting rules on its Web site a week or more in advance of Federal Register publication, this objective could be thwarted even before that publication. Thus, EPA has slightly modified its approach in this rulemaking and plans to follow this modified approach in future significant new use rulemakings.

Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires. If such a person met the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered exempt from the requirements of the SNUR. Consult the Federal Register document of April 24, 1990 for a more detailed discussion of the cutoff date for ongoing uses.

EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular new information (e.g., generating test data) before submission of a SNUN. There is an exception: Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a rule, order or consent agreement under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit information in their possession or control and to describe any other information known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In cases where EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order that requires or recommends certain testing, Unit IV. lists those tests. Unit IV. also lists recommended testing for non-TSCA section 5(e) SNURs. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines are available from the OECD Bookshop at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or SourceOECD at http://www.sourceoecd.org.

In the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders for several of the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production volume limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. Under recent TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, each PMN submitter is required to submit each study at least 14 weeks (earlier TSCA section 5(e) consent orders required submissions at least 12 weeks) before reaching the specified production limit. Listings of the tests specified in the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders are included in Unit IV. The SNURs contain the same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture or processing.

The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:

• Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

• Potential benefits of the chemical substances.

• Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at § 721.1725(b)(1).

Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance and must identify the specific use for which it intends to manufacture or process the chemical substance. If EPA concludes that the person has shown a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance, EPA will tell the person whether the use identified in the bona fide submission would be a significant new use under the rule. Since most of the chemical identities of the chemical substances subject to these SNURs are also CBI, manufacturers and processors can combine the bona fide submission under the procedure in § 14;721.1725(b)(1) with that under § 14;721.11 into a single step.

If EPA determines that the use identified in the bona fide submission would not be a significant new use, i.e., the use does not meet the criteria specified in the rule for a significant new use, that person can manufacture or process the chemical substance so long as the significant new use trigger is not met. In the case of a production volume trigger, this means that the aggregate annual production volume does not exceed that identified in the bona fide submission to EPA. Because of confidentiality concerns, EPA does not typically disclose the actual production volume that constitutes the use trigger. Thus, if the person later intends to exceed that volume, a new bona fide submission would be necessary to determine whether that higher volume would be a significant new use.

According to § 14;721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0331.

This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs, or TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. 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).

According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this action. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this action.

This action is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit XI. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

• A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

• Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.

Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

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), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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 parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

The supplementary Information section is arranged as follows:

The New Jersey emissions inventory SIP revision will ensure that the requirements for emissions inventory measures and reporting are adequately met. To comply with the emissions inventory requirements, New Jersey submitted a complete inventory containing point, area, on-road, and non-road mobile source data, and accompanying documentation. EPA is approving the SIP revision submittal as meeting the essential reporting requirements for emission inventories. EPA has also determined that the SIP revision meets the requirements for emission inventories in accordance with EPA guidance.

Therefore, EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey SIP which pertains to the following: 2011 calendar year summer season daily and annual ozone precursor emission inventories for VOC, NOX and CO for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, the EPA is approving the 2011 calendar year PM2.5/Regional Haze emissions inventory that was developed statewide for New Jersey. The pollutants included in the inventory are annual emissions for VOC, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, NH3 and SO2. The reader is referred to the April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17166) proposal for details on this rulemaking.

EPA did not receive any comments on the April 10, 2017 proposed approval of New Jersey's 2011 emissions inventory.

EPA is approving a revision to the New Jersey SIP which pertains to the following: 2011 calendar year summer season daily and annual ozone precursor emission inventories for VOC, NOX and CO for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, the EPA is approving the 2011 calendar year PM2.5/Regional Haze emissions inventory that was developed statewide for New Jersey. The pollutants included in the inventory are annual emissions for VOC, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, NH3 and SO2.

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 November 20, 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 section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

On July 3, 2017, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR 30815) and Direct Final Rulemaking (DFRN) (82 FR 30747) proposing to approve and approving, respectively, a RACT approval for a VOC emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. The RACT approval was submitted by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) to EPA as a SIP revision on August 8, 2003, which was amended on February 20, 2004. In the DFRN, EPA stated that if an adverse comment were to be submitted to EPA by August 2, 2017, the action would be withdrawn and not take effect, and a final rule would be issued based on the NPR. EPA received one adverse comment prior to the close of the comment period. Therefore, EPA withdrew the DFRN on September 1, 2017 (82 FR 41526). This action is a final rule based on the NPR.

A detailed discussion of Rhode Island's August 8, 2003 SIP revision and February 20, 2004 amendment, and EPA's rationale for approving the SIP revision were provided in the DFRN and will not be restated here, except to the extent relevant to our response to the public comment we received.

EPA received one adverse comment on its July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30815) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Comment: The commenter raised concerns that the rulemaking identified TPI Composites, Inc. (TPI) as being owned and operated by US Watercraft Inc., and asserted that TPI is an entirely independent and separate corporate entity from US Watercraft, LLC with no common ownership or control of operations between the two companies. The commenter also stated that US Watercraft, LLC purchased and now owns the fiberglass boat manufacturing processes covered by the RACT approval and that TPI is not conducting fiberglass boat manufacturing operations at 373 Market Street in Warren, Rhode Island.

Response: It was not EPA's intention to describe TPI as being owned and operated by US Watercraft, LLC. EPA agrees that the RACT approval being approved into the RI SIP only applies to the fiberglass boat manufacturing operations located at 373 Market Street in Warren, Rhode Island, which are currently known to be owned and operated by US Watercraft, LLC as referenced in the US Watercraft, LLC Operating Permit Number RI-39-09(R1) issued by the RI DEM on April 24, 2009.

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, a RACT approval effective July 16, 2003, and a RACT approval amendment effective February 11, 2004, for US Watercraft, LLC. The RACT approval and amendment were submitted by the RI DEM to EPA as a SIP revision on August 8, 2003, and February 20, 2004, respectively. EPA is also removing the previously approved consent agreement File No. 90-1-AP issued to TPI from the Rhode Island SIP.

It should be noted that subsequent to RI DEM's submittal of its SIP revision and amendment in 2003 and 2004, respectively, EPA later issued a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481). RI DEM has not yet addressed this CTG. On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA issued a Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Rhode Island's failure to submit a SIP revision to satisfy the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.

At this time, EPA is taking no action with regard to Rhode Island's obligation to address the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials since Rhode Island has not yet taken formal action to address this CTG. With this action, we are approving the revised RACT approval for US Watercraft as meeting CAA section 110(l) because the SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Moreover, approving this RACT approval into the Rhode Island SIP will strengthen the SIP as it is designed to control VOC emissions. However, Rhode Island is still obligated to submit a formal SIP revision to EPA detailing how the State is addressing the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG for any and all sources in the State covered by that CTG.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the RACT Approval for US Watercraft, LLC described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

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 November 20, 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 section 307(b)(2)).

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

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Kansas SIP and 112(l) program submission received on December 5, 2016. The SIP submission requests revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-300 that include: Implementing revisions to include fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to implement the prevention of significant deterioration permitting component of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, pursuant to EPA's NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule (2008 NSR Rule), (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008); clarifying and refining applicability criteria for sources subject to construction permitting program by proposing the following: (1) Eliminating the requirements for all Title IV Acid Rain sources to obtain construction permits that would not have otherwise been required; (2) clarifing the construction review requirements for sources emitting hazardous air pollutants, or sources subject to standards promulgated by the USEPA; (3) eliminating the requirement for sources to obtain an approval solely due to being subject to standards promulgated by the EPA without regard to emissions for insignificant activities; and making minor revisions and corrections. The SIP submission also requests revisions to K.A.R. 28-19-304 that include: (1) Updating the construction permitting program fee structure from an estimated capital cost mechanism to one based on complexity of source and permit type and (2) updating the fee schedule to bring in sufficient revenue to adequately administer the Kansas Air Quality Act. The SIP submission also makes minor revisions and corrections.

EPA is approving requested revisions to the Kansas SIP relating to the following:

• Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-300. Applicability; and

• Construction Permits and Approvals. Kansas Administrative Regulations 28-19-304. Fees.

EPA has conducted analysis on the state's revisions and has found that the revisions would not impact air quality, ensures consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules. Additional information on the EPA's analysis can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) included in this docket.

EPA is also taking direct final action to approve a portion of K.A.R. 28-19-300 under the 112(l) program pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, as requested by the State of Kansas on April 19, 2017. The State of Kansas is requesting that the applicable portions of K.A.R. 28-19-300 pertaining to limiting the potential-to-emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) be approved under CAA 112(l) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, in addition to being approved under the SIP.1 Specifically, K.A.R. 28-19-300(a)(2) and (3) as well as K.A.R. 28-19-300(b)(4) through (6) are also approved under CAA section 112(l) because they require permits or approvals for hazardous air pollutants that may limit the potential-to-emit hazardous air pollutants by establishing permit conditions that are Federally-enforceable.

The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and and implementing regulations.

EPA is taking direct final action to amend the Kansas SIP and 112(l) program by approving the State's request to amend K.A.R. 28-19-300 Construction Permits and Approvals—Applicability and to amend the Kansas SIP by approving K.A.R. 28-19-304 Construction Permits and Approvals—Fees. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency between state and Federally-approved rules. The EPA has determined that these changes will not adversely impact air quality.

We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP and 112(l) program revision, if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

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 the Kansas Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the 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.2

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

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

• 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 20, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

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

The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

The major entities that would potentially be affected by Procedure 6 for gaseous HCl CEMS are those entities that are required to install a new HCl CEMS, relocate an existing HCl CEMS, or replace an existing HCl CEMS under any applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63 that were initially accepted following requirements in PS 18 of appendix B in part 60. Table 1 of this preamble lists the current federal rules by subpart and the corresponding source categories to which Procedure 6 potentially would apply.

The requirements of Procedure 6 may also apply to stationary sources located in a state, district, reservation, or territory that adopts Procedure 6 in its implementation plan.

Table 2 lists the corresponding North American Industry Classification (NAICS) codes for the source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather they provide a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the potential applicability of Procedure 6 to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air quality management, measurement standards and implementation, etc. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the promulgation and key technical documents on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promulgated.html.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 20, 2017. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

On July 7, 2015, the EPA published Procedure 6, which is a companion to PS 18. Procedure 6 specifies the minimum QA requirements necessary for control and assessment of the quality of CEMS data submitted to the EPA used for HCl emissions compliance determination at stationary sources (80 FR 38628). Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6 are applicable to the evaluation of HCl continuous monitoring instruments for Portland cement facilities, electric generating units and industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters. After publication of Procedure 6, certain minor inconsistencies with treatment of data above span and how to calculate the error of CEMS accuracy using dynamic spiking were identified. The EPA proposed to correct the minor inconsistencies in PS 18 and Procedure 6 through a direct final action titled, “Technical Amendments to Performance Specification 18 and Procedure 6.” 81 FR 31515 (May 19, 2016). One substantive comment was received regarding changes to Procedure 6. The EPA finalized PS 18 and withdrew Procedure 6 (81 FR 52348). With this action, the EPA is responding to that comment and finalizing corrections to Procedure 6.

This action finalizes changes to Procedure 6 that were proposed on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31577), and responds to the substantive comment received in response to that proposal by:

(1) Clarifying that the QA for data above span is subject to the specific requirements in applicable rules or permits, which supersede the general requirements in Procedure 6 (section 4.1.5);

(2) Clarifying the time that triggers conducting an above span CEMS response check (section 4.1.5.1);

(3) Correcting the incomplete reference to equations used to calculate dynamic spiking error (section 5.2.4.2).

A commenter stated that one of the revisions to Procedure 6, as proposed by EPA on May 19, 2016, appeared to significantly change the applicability of certain QA requirements, contending that to do so would be inconsistent with the EPA's justification for the QA procedure originally promulgated in the 2015 final rule (80 FR 38628; July 7, 2015). The EPA agrees with the commenter that the obligation to follow the procedure for treatment of data above span should remain as originally promulgated: As existing only where required by an applicable regulation. The EPA's intent was not to enlarge the applicability of Procedure 6 for treatment of data above span, but simply to make clear that (to the extent this procedure even applies) it is furthermore superseded if alternate terms are specified in another applicable rule or permit. Thus, for example, where an applicable rule or permit accommodates a concentration level between 50 and 150 percent of the highest hourly concentration, during the period of measurements above span, that would be an acceptable implementation of Procedure 6, notwithstanding the default specification of section 4.1.5.1.1 that concentrations must be between 75 percent and 125 percent of the highest hourly concentration. The EPA has revised its proposed change to section 4.1.5 accordingly. It remains the case that the procedure under section 4.1.5 is not required unless separately mandated by an applicable regulation. The EPA also notes that with this amendment to section 4.1.5, the proposed amendment to section 4.1.5.3 (specifically noting that section 4.1.5.3 would not apply if “otherwise specified in an applicable rule or permit”) is superfluous. The caveat previously proposed specifically for section 4.1.5.3 should apply to all of section 4.1.5.

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

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action provides performance criteria and QA test procedures for assessing the acceptability of HCl CEMS performance and data quality. These criteria and QA test procedures do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulation.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action provides facilities with an alternative to PS 15 and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy for measuring HCl, which are currently required in several rules.

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action provides performance criteria and QA test procedures for assessing the acceptability of HCl CEMS performance and data quality. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a technical correction to a previously promulgated regulatory action and does not have any impact on human health or the environment. Documentation for this decision is provided in the Summary of Major Comments and Responses section of this preamble.

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Coast Guard regulations for inspecting and certificating vessels are located in subpart 2.01 of title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR subpart 2.01). Section 2.01-6 in that subpart contains provisions for issuing certificates of compliance to foreign-flagged vessels. Section 2.01-25 identifies certificates required by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) on certain vessels engaged in international voyages. This section also lists SOLAS certificates the Coast Guard issues to vessels that meet applicable SOLAS requirements.

Part 8 of 46 CFR contains Coast Guard regulations for vessel inspection alternatives. Specifically, 46 CFR 8.320 identifies international certificates that the Coast Guard may authorize recognized classification societies to issue on the Coast Guard's behalf.

On November 22, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (81 FR 83786) entitled, “Adding the Polar Ship Certificate to the List of SOLAS Certificates and Certificates Issued by Recognized Classification Societies.” That NPRM proposed to amend 46 CFR 2.01-6, 2.01-25, and 8.320. We received two written submissions in response to the NPRM.

In 2014 and 2015, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code) and added its requirements to two existing IMO Conventions—SOLAS, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)—in consideration of hazards and conditions unique to polar waters, and an expected increase in traffic in Arctic and Antarctic waters. These additional hazards include navigation in ice and low temperatures, high-latitude communications and navigation, remoteness from response resources, and limited hydrographic charting. Copies of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee and Marine Environment Protection Committee resolutions discussed in this paragraph are available in the docket.

The Polar Code took effect on January 1, 2017, and applies to all vessels constructed on or after that date. Beginning on January 1, 2018, the Polar Code will also start applying to existing vessels, based upon the date their SOLAS Certificates were issued.

One of the requirements for ships subject to the Polar Code is to carry a Polar Ship Certificate pursuant to SOLAS. The Polar Ship Certificate attests that the vessel has met applicable requirements of SOLAS. As a signatory to this convention, under Article I of SOLAS, the United States has an obligation to ensure compliance with SOLAS requirements.

This rule creates a certificate that newly constructed U.S.-flagged vessels, certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I, will need in order to travel internationally within polar waters, beginning January 1, 2017. Existing vessels will need the same certificate by their first intermediate or renewal survey after January 1, 2018. U.S.-flagged vessels that do not carry a Polar Ship Certificate risk detention, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other States.

This rulemaking is necessary to allow the Coast Guard to create the new Polar Ship Certificate and add it to the list of certificates required by SOLAS in 46 CFR part 2. Also, this rule allows the Coast Guard to authorize recognized classification societies to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on the Coast Guard's behalf under 46 CFR 8.320.

Foreign-flagged vessels, certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I and operating in polar waters, are also required to carry the Polar Ship Certificate. However, their certificates will be issued by the vessel's flag state, or a person or an organization authorized by that flag state to issue the certificate. The Coast Guard will examine foreign-flagged vessels during Port State Control boardings to ensure that they are properly certificated.

The Coast Guard is authorized to regulate this subject matter under 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3316, and 3703; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, and Executive Order 12234, “Enforcement of the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea” (45 FR 58801, Sept. 5, 1980).

We received two written submissions commenting on the proposed rule published on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83786). The comments raised concerns about four specific items, which we address in this section of the preamble.

One of the comments noted concerns about wording in the proposed rule that limits requirements to vessels engaged in international voyages. On this point, the comment also cited a December 2016 Coast Guard Polar Code policy letter (CG-CVC Policy Letter Letter 16-06, available in the docket), which states that U.S.-flag vessels operating on domestic voyages to ports or places in the U.S. Arctic do not need to meet the provisions of SOLAS chapter XIV,1 but must instead comply with applicable domestic requirements. The commenter concluded that this Coast Guard interpretation, reflected in the proposed rule, does not meet the intent of the IMO in implementation of the Polar Code.

We decline to expand the scope of the proposed rule. The proposed rule is consistent with our view that the SOLAS convention's authority is generally limited to vessels traveling internationally. Based on the intent of the SOLAS convention to ensure safe international shipping, and SOLAS certification as part of voluntary U.S. compliance programs, the United States will not require U.S.-flagged vessels operating on domestic routes through Arctic waters to obtain a Polar Ship Certificate.

A commenter raised concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the applicability of the Polar Code in Antarctica, given that these waters are not under the jurisdiction of the United States or any other nation. The Polar Code applies to ships engaged in international voyages that are also operating in polar waters. Polar waters include both the Arctic and Antarctic waters. Therefore, a U.S.-flagged vessel that is certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I and is on an international voyage must have a Polar Ship Certificate if it enters Antarctic waters.

The same commenter also questioned our burden hour estimate for the time required by classification societies to issue the Polar Ship Certificate. The commenter said that the estimate did not include time required for technical approvals or verification of compliance with provisions of the Polar Code.

Cost estimates for verifications of compliance with the Polar Code were not included in the regulatory analysis because these hours are outside the scope of this rulemaking. This rulemaking addresses the issuance of a Polar Ship Certificate, not compliance with substantive safety and environmental provisions or surveys to evaluate compliance with those provisions.

In our NPRM we used an estimate of 40 hours, which we obtained from a classification society and which includes administrative review, stamping the documents, and data input. The commenter, who also represents a classification society, gives a minimum time of 8 to 12 hours for these tasks. We have retained the more conservative 40-hour estimate.

The other hours the commenter discusses, 120 to 230 hours to complete approval work for new construction, risk assessments, and surveys, represent compliance aspects of the safety and environmental provisions of the Polar Code. Again, these compliance aspects are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

One commenter stated that the language we used in the NPRM implied that all U.S.-flagged vessels subject to the Polar Code will be required to carry a Polar Ship Certificate by January 1, 2017.

The January 1, 2017 date applies to vessels built on or after that date. Vessels built before that date need not comply until after January 1, 2018. Implementation for existing vessels is based on the first renewal or intermediate survey conducted after January 1, 2018. (See SOLAS chapter XIV, Reg. 2.2.) For the purposes of the Polar Code, the Cargo Ship Safety Construction or Passenger Ship Safety Certificate is typically the survey used to determine the implementation date for vessels built before January 1, 2017.

We have made no changes from the proposed regulatory text. The regulatory text in this final rule is the same as we proposed in the NPRM.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.

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 final rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum titled Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (April 5, 2017).

Our regulatory analysis (RA) follows.

We only received one comment on our estimates in the regulatory analysis of the proposed rule. That comment related to the number of hours used for the creation and issuance of the certificate. However, the commenter also mentioned some hour burdens that are not associated with the creation, review, and issuance of the Polar Ship certificate, and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

In preamble section IV, Discussion of Comments and Changes, we discuss this public comment regarding our estimate of the time it takes a recognized classification society to create a polar certificate—which includes reviewing, printing, stamping of the documents, and data input—and explain why we retained a more conservative estimate used in the NPRM as our primary estimate based on industry input. And as reflected in that discussion, we adopt the costs and benefits in the regulatory analysis of the proposed rule for this final rule.

This final rule adds a new Polar Ship Certificate to the list of existing SOLAS certificates that SOLAS requires to be carried on board all U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels above 500 GT ITC (the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships 1969 or gross tonnage assigned under this system) 2 or passenger ships carrying more than 12 passengers on international voyages operating in polar waters, generally above 60 degrees north latitude and below 60 degrees south latitude lines. The IMO adopted the Polar Code in 2014 and 2015 to acknowledge that polar waters impose additional operating demands and risks.3 The United States is signatory to the SOLAS convention and has an obligation to ensure that all U.S.-flagged vessels certified in accordance with SOLAS chapter I that engage on international voyages carry a Polar Ship Certificate when operating in polar waters. Owners and operators of foreign-flagged vessels subject to SOLAS will have their Polar Ship Certificates issued by the ship's flag state or a person or an organization authorized by that flag state to issue the certificate.

This rule amends 46 CFR part 2, “Vessel Inspections,” subpart 2.01, “Inspecting and Certificating of Vessels.” Specifically, we are adding the Polar Ship Certificate to § 2.01-6, “Certificates issued to foreign vessels,” and § 2.01-25, “International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea.” This rule also amends 46 CFR part 8, “Vessel Inspection Alternatives,” subpart C, “International Convention Certificate Issuance,” § 8.320, “Classification Society Authorization to Issue International Certificates,” at paragraph (b) to include the Polar Ship Certificate as one of the certificates that the Coast Guard may authorize a recognized classification society to issue on behalf of the Coast Guard.

Since the Coast Guard published the NPRM, two vessels in our original population of 41 have been re-flagged and are no longer U.S.-flagged vessels, and one vessel is no longer in service. In addition, this rule does not apply to domestic vessels that operate in polar waters if these vessels do not engage in international voyages. This was not distinguished in the analysis for the NPRM. Based on this factor and further analysis, the population of affected vessels is now estimated to be 23. This is the number of U.S.-flagged vessels that make international voyages in polar waters, which are generally above and below the 60 degree north and 60 degree south latitudes lines, respectively, over the past 5 years. This estimate is based on Coast Guard field data and Coast Guard databases such as the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement, the Ship Arrival Notification System, and data from the Navigation Data Center.

Of the 23 U.S.-flagged vessels that have transited polar waters during the 5-year period, some entered polar waters in the first year and not the following year, but returned in subsequent years. The opposite is also true; some vessels that did not transit polar waters in the first year of the data period did so in the following years of the data period.

Recognized classification societies granted authority from the Coast Guard under provisions of 46 CFR 8.320(a) will issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard for U.S.-flagged vessels that are classed. Although multiple classification societies could request authorization to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard, for the purpose of this analysis, the Coast Guard assumes that only one classification society will do so for the small number of classed U.S.-flagged vessels.

This rule amends 46 CFR 8.320(b) to enable recognized classification societies to request authorization under § 8.240(b), to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard. As reflected in 46 CFR 2.01-25, vessels that are not classed can apply to the local Coast Guard Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) to request the Coast Guard to issue the Polar Ship Certificate.

There are two cost elements associated with a classification society issuing a Polar Ship Certificate: The cost to review and return a signed copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the recognized classification society and the Coast Guard, and the cost to create the certificate once the MOA is approved by each party. As stated in 46 CFR 8.320(c), the Coast Guard will enter into an agreement with the classification society to issue international convention certificates such as the Polar Ship Certificate. In this situation, the MOA represents a delegation letter and is a standard document that allows a recognized classification society to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard.

Based on Coast Guard data from the Office of Design and Engineering Standards, we estimate it will take a recognized classification society's classification and documentation specialist 1 hour to review the MOA. There is no equivalent labor category in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2016, so we used the “Business Operations Specialist, All Other” (Occupation Code 13-1199) category for Water Transportation with a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code of 483000 as a representative occupation. The mean hourly wage rate for this occupation is $37.55. Because this is an unloaded hourly wage rate, we added a load factor to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate. We used BLS' May 2016 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation databases to calculate and apply a load factor of 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of about $57.08 for this occupation.4 We also estimate it will take a recognized classification society attorney 1 hour to review the MOA for legal sufficiency. Using the BLS' Occupational Employment Statistics National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for May 2016, we used the category “Lawyers” (Occupation Code 23-1011). The mean hourly wage for this occupation is $67.25. Because this is an unloaded hourly wage rate, we apply the same load factor of 1.52 as derived above to obtain a loaded hourly wage rate of about $102.22.

We estimate the one-time cost for the classification society to review the MOA to be about $162.30, undiscounted. This cost includes a $3 postage cost to mail the signed MOA to the Coast Guard for approval and signature [($57.08 × 1 hour) + ($102.22 × 1 hour) + $3 for postage].

Based on a recognized classification society estimate, it will take approximately 40 hours to create and review the Polar Ship Certificate once the MOA is approved. We received a lower estimate of 8-to-12 hours from a commenter for work related to this task, but we are maintaining our more conservative 40-hour estimate we obtained from an industry source to specifically address hours needed to create and review the Polar Ship Certificate once the MOA is approved. As with the MOA, a classification and documentation specialist would create the certificate. We again used the “Business Operations Specialist, All Other” as a representative occupation. We estimate the one-time labor cost for a documentation specialist to create the certificate to be about $2,283.20 (40 hours 5 × $57.08/hour), undiscounted. Because the certificate is presented to a vessel owner or operator during the normal course of a vessel survey, we did not estimate a cost for this action.

We estimate the total undiscounted cost of the rule to a recognized classification society to be about $2,445.50 ($2,283.20 document development cost + $162.30 MOA review cost). See Table 1.

There are two cost elements associated with vessel owners and operators: The fee a recognized classification society will charge a vessel owner or operator for issuing the certificate for U.S.-classed vessels only, and the cost associated with a crewmember posting the certificate onboard a vessel. Based on Coast Guard vessel data, approximately 22 percent, or about 5 out of the 23 U.S.-flagged vessels, are not classed by a recognized classification society.

The requirement for the 23 existing ships is to have the certificate by their first renewal or intermediate exam after January 1, 2018. This is a phased-in approach that will likely phase in the issuing of the certificates over a period of about 3 years. Therefore, the Coast Guard would issue the Polar Ship Certificate to vessel owners and operators of those 5 unclassed vessels as part of its routine inspection regime. A recognized classification society will issue the Polar Ship Certificate to the remaining 18 vessel owners and operators in the first, second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth year of the analysis period.

The Polar Ship Certificate is valid for a 5-year period and, after this time, the recognized classification society and the Coast Guard will issue a new Polar Ship Certificate to vessel owners and operators, depending upon whether a vessel is classed or not classed. Based on information from a recognized classification society, the cost to issue a Polar Ship Certificate is $100 if a recognized classification society issues the certificate (for 18 classed, U.S.-flagged vessels). The cost of the reissued Polar Ship Certificate is also $100; therefore, it will cost each U.S.-classed vessel owner and operator $100 after 5 years to renew the certificate, or in the sixth, seventh, and eighth year of the analysis period. We assume a 3-year phase-in period for owners and operators to obtain the certificates. For the purpose of this analysis, we assume 7 U.S.-flagged vessels owners and operators (6 classed and 1 unclassed) will obtain a certificate in the first year and 8 (6 classed and 2 unclassed) U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will obtain one in the second and third years. For reissuance, again, we assume the same 7 vessel owners and operators will obtain a certificate in the sixth year and the same 8 vessel owners and operators will obtain one in the seventh and eighth years each; we divided the population accordingly to obtain even values.

Vessel owners and operators will be required to post the certificate in a conspicuous area onboard the vessel with other applicable operating certificates. Based on the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approved collection of information entitled “Various International Agreement Safety Certificates,” (OMB control number 1625-0017), a crewmember equivalent to a U.S. Coast Guard cadet will post the Polar Ship Certificate on board a vessel. Using the Coast Guard's Commandant Instruction 7310.1R for loaded hourly wages outside of the Government, the hourly wage rate of a person outside of the Government equivalent to a cadet is $29.00. We estimate it takes a crewmember about 6 minutes, or 0.1 hours, to post the Polar Ship Certificate at a labor cost of about $2.90 per vessel ($29.00 × 0.1 hours). To post the Polar Ship Certificate, we estimate the total initial cost of the final rule to 7 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to be about $20.30 (6 U.S. classed and 1 unclassed vessel × 0.1 hours × $29.00), regardless of whether a recognized classification society or the Coast Guard issues the Polar Ship Certificate. Owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels will incur this cost again in the sixth year because a crewmember will review and post the reissued certificate for the same seven vessels.

We estimate the initial cost of the rule to vessel owners and operators to be about $620.30 in the first year [(6 classed vessels × $100) + (6 classed vessels × $2.90 to post the certificate) + 1 unclassed vessel × $2.90 to post the certificate)].6 The cost for the renewed certificate in the sixth year (or 5 years after the initial year) will also be $620.30 for these seven vessels. In the second, third, seventh, and eighth years, we estimate the cost for eight U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to obtain and post a Polar Ship Certificate to be about $623.20 [(6 classed vessels × $100) + (6 classed vessels × $2.90 to post the certificate) + (2 unclassed vessels in each of these years × $2.90 each year to post the certificate)]. See Table 1.

We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost to be $3,733.40 for all 23 U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators ($620.30 in the first and sixth year + $623.20 in the second, third, seventh, and eighth years of the analysis period). Table 1 shows the cost to both class society and vessel owners and operators for this rule.

We estimate the initial undiscounted cost of the final rule to a recognized classification society and to 7 (6 classed and 1 unclassed vessels) U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to be about $3,065.80 ($2,283.20 for the classification society to create the certificate + $162.30 for the classification society to review the MOA + $600 fee charged by a classification society to issue the certificate to the 6 classed vessel owners and operators + $20.30 for crewmembers of the seven classed and unclassed vessels to post the certificate). We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost of the rule to industry to be about $6,178.90 ($3,065.80 in the first year + $623.20 in the second, third, seventh, and, eighth years + $620.30 in the sixth year). See Table 2.

We estimate the 10-year present value—or discounted cost—of the rule to industry to be between $5,082.42 and $5,652.42 at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $723.62 and $662.64 at 7- and 3- percent discount rates, respectively. See Table 2.

There are three cost elements associated with this rule for the Coast Guard: (1) A one-time cost of creating the Polar Ship Certificate and issuing it (in the initial year, second, third, sixth, seventh, and eighth years) to a vessel owner or operator if a vessel is not classed by a class society; (2) reviewing the certificate onboard a vessel as part of the Coast Guard's routine inspection regime; and (3) a one-time cost of creating and sending the delegation letter or MOA to a classification society for signature.

For the 5 U.S.-flagged vessels that are not classed by a recognized classification society, the Coast Guard will issue the Polar Ship Certificate in the first through the third years and the sixth through the eighth years. Because of the phase-in period, we divided the 5 vessels evenly over 3 years. We determined that 1 vessel will receive its certificate in the first and sixth years, and 2 vessels will receive it in the second, third, seventh, and eighth year, with certificate reissuance occurring during the sixth, seventh, and eighth years. The two vessels in the second and third years are the same two vessels in the seventh and eighth years.

Based on information from the Coast Guard's Office of Vessel Compliance, we estimate it takes Coast Guard personnel with the average equivalence of a GS-15 about 40 hours to create and review a Polar Ship Certificate. Using the Commandant Instruction 7310.1R, we used an average loaded hourly wage rate of $116.00. We estimate the one-time cost for the Coast Guard to create the Polar Ship Certificate to be about $4,640.00 (40 hours × $116.00 hour).

Based on an OMB-approved collection of information (Control Number 1625-0017), we estimate it takes a Coast Guard Officer the Officer in Charge Marine Inspection (OCMI), or more specifically, a Lieutenant with the rank of an O-3, about 30 minutes, or 0.5 hours per vessel, to review the Polar Ship Certificate for validity and correctness (the Coast Guard issues and reviews the certificate at the same time during its normal inspection regime). Using the Coast Guard's Commandant Instruction 7310.1R for loaded hourly wages, an O-3 has a loaded hourly wage rate of $79.00. Therefore, we estimate the total undiscounted cost to the Government to review the Polar Ship Certificate for all 23 affected vessels to be about $908.50 ($79.00× 23 vessels × 0.5 hours), or about $39.50 per vessel.

We use the same methodology noted earlier in this preamble with owners and operators obtaining certificates over a 3-year period (7 in the first and sixth year and 8 in the second, third, seventh and eighth year), with the sixth, seventh and eighth years being the renewal years. Again, 7 inspections (6 classed and 1 unclassed) will take place in the first and sixth year, and 8 (6 classed and 2 unclassed) in the second, third, seventh, and eighth year. We estimate the first year cost to the Government to review the certificate will be about $276.50 (6 classed and 1 unclassed vessels × $39.50). The Government will incur this cost again in the sixth year when the certificate is reissued. In years two, three, seven, and eight, the Government will incur a certificate review cost of about $316.00 (6 classed and 2 unclassed vessels × $39.50) in each of these years.

The Coast Guard will also examine the certificates of foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports in polar waters as part of its routine Port State Control vessel boardings. This will take place during routine Coast Guard examinations and for issuing certificates of compliance and is a part of the inspection process. Therefore, we do not estimate a cost to the Government.

This final rule will also enable a recognized classification society to issue the Polar Ship Certificate on behalf of the Coast Guard. As a result, the Coast Guard and a recognized classification society will enter into an MOA that delegates authority to the classification society. This sets forth guidelines for cooperation between the Coast Guard and a classification society with respect to initial and subsequent inspections for certifications and periodic re-inspections or examinations of vessels of the United States, as defined by 46 U.S.C. 116.

Based on information from the Coast Guard's Office of Design and Engineering Standards, Coast Guard personnel with the average equivalence of a GS-15 will prepare the MOA for delivery to a classification society. Again, we used an average loaded hourly labor rate of $116.00 for a GS-15. We estimate it will take Government personnel about 6.25 hours to prepare and review the MOA. We estimate it will cost about $3 in postage for the Government to send the MOA to the classification society.

We estimate the total cost incurred by the Government for the MOA to be about $725.00 plus $3 for postage, or a total cost of $728.00, undiscounted (6.25 hours × $116.00 for the loaded labor rate).

We estimate the total initial cost to the Government to be about $5,644.50 ($4,640 to create and review the certificate, $276.50 to review the certificates for 6 classed and 1 unclassed U.S.-flagged vessels, and $728.00 for the MOA). We estimate the total 10-year undiscounted cost to the Government to be about $7,185.00 ($5,644.50 in the initial year + $316.00 in the second, third, seventh and eighth years + $276.50 in the sixth year). We estimate the 10-year present value, or discounted cost of the rule to the Government, to be between $6374.14 and $6,805.10, using 7- and 3- percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $907.53 and $797.76, using 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. See Table 3.

We estimate the total 10-year combined undiscounted cost of the rule to industry and the Government to be about $13,364. We estimate the 10-year present value, or discounted cost of the rule to industry and the Government, to be between $11,457 and $12,458 at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized cost to be between $1,631 and $1,460 using the same discount rates. See Table 4.

The primary benefit of this rule is to ensure that vessel owners and operators have a valid Polar Ship Certificate on board the vessel. Without a Polar Ship Certificate, a vessel will be subject to deficiencies, detention, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other port States. Adherence to SOLAS will ensure vessels are capable of operating in the hazards and adverse weather conditions unique to polar waters.

When creating this rule, the Coast Guard considered several alternatives. The previous analysis represents the preferred alternative, which will help ensure that the United States fulfills its treaty obligations under SOLAS regarding the Polar Ship Certificate, and that U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators that operate vessels in polar waters will be able to obtain Polar Ship Certificates and thus operate more efficiently by avoiding the risk of potential negative actions against their vessel by foreign countries (such as, detentions, deficiencies, denial of entry, or expulsions) if their vessel does not have a Polar Ship Certificate on board.

The analysis for this alternative appears in this, “Regulatory Analysis,” section of this preamble.

In this alternative, the United States would take no action to issue a Polar Ship Certificate. None of the costs itemized in the preferred alternative would be incurred, as a result. However, with this alternative, the United States would not be compliant with its international legal obligations as a signatory Government to the SOLAS Convention. Additionally, the lack of appropriate certifications would likely negatively impact U.S.-flagged vessels on international voyages in polar waters of other port States. U.S.-flagged vessels could potentially be subject to deficiencies, detentions, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other port states due to the lack of proper certificates.

Because the United States would not meet its international treaty obligations in this alternative, the Coast Guard rejects this alternative.

In this alternative, the Coast Guard would implement the entire Polar Code in one regulatory effort. This would create or modify regulations throughout 46 and 33 CFR. The affected vessels, operators, and the Government will also incur the costs and impacts of the implementation of the entire Polar Code from a single regulatory effort.

The Coast Guard rejected this alternative because it would considerably delay the issuance of the certificate beyond the January 1, 2017 effective date of the Polar Code. As stated previously, U.S.-flagged vessels could potentially be subject to deficiencies, detentions, denial of entry, or expulsion from the polar waters of other port states due to the lack of proper certificates.

By moving forward with Alternative 1, U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will be able to obtain a Polar Ship Certificate much sooner and thus operate more efficiently in polar waters of foreign nations by avoiding adverse consequences from not having the certificate on board.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard prepared this threshold analysis that examines the impacts of the rule on small entities.

Based on our analysis of the entities affected by this rule, all of the 23 affected U.S.-flagged vessels are owned by U.S. entities. To determine which entities are small, we compiled the data used in this analysis from publicly available and proprietary sources such as Manta, ReferenceUSAGov, and Cortera, and from the affected entities' Web sites. We used available owner's business information to identify the entities' primary line of business as coded by the NAICS to find employee and revenue size information. We used this information to determine whether we should consider a business “small” by comparing it to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.” In some cases, SBA classifies businesses on a standard either based on the number of employees or annual revenues.7 We found that no small government jurisdictions or non-profits own any of the U.S.-flagged vessels affected by this rule.

We found that 12 companies own the 23 vessels that will be affected by this final rule. Of the 12 different companies, we found only one to be a small entity, or about 8 percent, based on SBA's table of small business size standards. The one small entity that we found has a primary NAICS code of 483111, or “Deep Sea Freight Transportation.”

We estimate the initial cost to each classed vessel owner and operator (small and not small) to be about $102.90 [$600/6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators that have their vessels classed by a class society + $17.40 (6 classed vessels × $2.90)/6 (cost for crewmembers of 6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators to post the certificate divided by the number of U.S.-classed vessel owners and operators. Again, in the sixth year, these 6 classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will incur this cost)]. In the second and third years, the remaining 12 (6 each year) classed U.S.-flagged vessel owners and operators will incur this same cost, and again in the renewal years of seven and eight. The 5 U.S.-flagged vessel owners who own unclassed vessels will only incur a cost of $2.90 per vessel in the each of the years described above. These vessel owners and operators will incur the same cost in the first (one vessel) through third years (two vessels in the second and third year each) and sixth (the same vessel as in the first year) through eighth years (the same two vessels as in the second and third year in the seventh and eighth year each) of the analysis period. See Table 5.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, adopted on October 27, 2016 in WC Docket No. 16-106, FCC 16-148, which amended the rules under 47 CFR part 64, subpart U. It published a summary of the Report and Order on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87274), and thereafter submitted it to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval (S.J. Res. 34) of the Report and Order under the Congressional Review Act. The House of Representatives then passed S.J. Res. 34 on March 28, 2017. President Trump signed the resolution into law as Public Law 115-22 on April 3, 2017. Therefore, under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, the Report and Order shall be “treated as though such a rule had never taken effect.” 5 U.S.C. 801(f).

However, because the CRA does not include direction regarding the removal, by the Office of the Federal Register or otherwise, of the voided language from the Code of Federal Regulations, the FCC must publish this document to effect the removal of the voided text. This document will enable the Office of the Federal Register to effectuate congressional intent to remove the voided text of the rules adopted in the Report and Order as if it had never taken effect, and to restore the previous language in 47 CFR part 64, subpart U and prior state of the Code of Federal Regulations.

This action is not an exercise of the FCC's rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, because the Commission is not “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule” under 5 U.S.C. 551(5). Rather, the FCC is effectuating changes to the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect what congressional action has already accomplished—namely, the nullification of any changes purported to have been made to the CFR by the Report and Order and the reversion to the regulatory text in effect immediately prior to adoption of the Report and Order. Accordingly, the FCC is not soliciting comments on this action. Moreover, this action is not a final agency action subject to judicial review.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows: