Federal Register Vol. 82, No.236,

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Order No. 966, as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida. Part 966, (hereinafter referred to as the “Order”), is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers of tomatoes operating within the area of production.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, Florida tomato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate will be applicable to all assessable tomatoes beginning on August 1, 2017, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.035 to $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of tomatoes handled.

The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers of Florida tomatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on August 22, 2017, and unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of tomatoes. Last year's budgeted expenditures were also $1,494,600. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.01 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers and utilize funds from the authorized reserve to help cover Committee expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $450,000 for staff salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were also $450,000, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by considering anticipated expenses, expected shipments of Florida tomatoes, and the level of funds in the authorized reserve. Tomato shipments for the year are estimated at 33 million 25-pound containers, which should provide $825,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $979,410) would be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 966.44).

The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate would be effective for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public, and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2017-18 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 80 producers of Florida tomatoes in the production area and 47 handlers subject to regulation under the Marketing Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 2016-17 season was approximately $8.00 per 25-pound container, and total fresh shipments were 32.8 million containers. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have average annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. In addition, based on production data, an estimated producer price of $3.00 per 25-pound container, and the number of Florida tomato producers, the average annual producer revenue is above $750,000. Thus, a majority of the handlers of Florida tomatoes may be classified as small entities, while a majority of the producers may be classified as large entities.

This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate established for the 2017-18 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.035 to $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent of Florida tomatoes. The Committee unanimously recommended 2017-18 expenditures of $1,494,600 and an assessment rate of $0.025 per 25-pound container or equivalent handled. The assessment rate of $0.025 is $0.01 lower than the 2016-17 rate. The quantity of assessable Florida tomatoes for the 2017-18 fiscal period is estimated at 33 million 25-pound containers or equivalent. Thus, the $0.025 rate should provide $825,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2017-18 year include $450,000 for staff salaries, $400,000 for research, and $400,000 for education and promotion. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2016-17 were also $450,000, $400,000, and $400,000, respectively.

The Committee recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the assessment burden on handlers and utilize funds from the authorized reserve to help cover Committee expenses.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Finance Subcommittee, Education and Promotion Subcommittee, and the Research Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the Florida tomato industry. Based on estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.025 should provide $825,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined assessment revenue, along with interest income and funds from authorized reserves would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2017-18 fiscal period.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the average producer price for the 2017-18 season could be about $6.50 per 25-pound container or equivalent of Florida tomatoes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2017-18 crop year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be around 0.4 percent.

This proposed action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Florida tomato industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 22, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposal does not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Florida tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this proposed rule, as hereinafter set forth, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 966 is proposed to be amended as follows:

On December 7, 2017, a Notice of Hearing was placed on public inspection at the Federal Register (Document Number 2017-26632) announcing a hearing to begin on December 12, 2017. That notice is scheduled to be published December 11, 2017. The Rules of Practice and Procedure Governing Proceedings to Formulate Marketing Agreements and Marketing Orders require that the time of a hearing cannot be less than 3 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register (7 CFR 900.4).

Therefore, notice is hereby given that the public hearing to be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Tampa Downtown Convention Center, 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, will be held December 12, 2017, through December 14, 2017. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. on each hearing day. If no interested persons appear to present testimony or evidence by noon on December 13, 2017 or December 14, 2017, the hearing will conclude at noon on that day.

This proposed rule is governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is exempt from the definition of “regulation” or “rule” in Executive Order 12866 and, thus, is not a regulatory action.

The hearing is called pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (Act), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part 900).

Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Tampa Downtown Convention Center, 513 South Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on December 12, 2017, with respect to proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreements and order regulating the handling of milk in the Florida milk marketing area.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence with respect to the economic and marketing conditions which relate to the proposed amendments, hereinafter set forth, and any appropriate modifications thereof, to the tentative marketing agreements and to the order.

Actions under the Federal milk order program are subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA). The RFA seeks to ensure that, within the statutory authority of a program, the regulatory and information collection requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small businesses. For the purpose of the RFA, a dairy farm is a “small business” if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $750,000, and a dairy products manufacturer is a “small business” if it has fewer than 500 employees (13 CFR 121.201). Most parties subject to a milk order are considered small businesses. Accordingly, interested parties are invited to present evidence on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the hearing proposals on small businesses. Also, parties may offer modifications of these proposals for the purpose of tailoring their applicability to small businesses.

The amendments proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed amendments would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under Section 8c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may request modification or exemption from such order by filing with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with the law. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's decision on the petition, provided a complaint is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The public hearing is being conducted to collect evidence for the record concerning the potential need for emergency payments to reimburse handlers and producers for costs they incurred as a result of disruptions stemming from Hurricane Irma. The payments as proposed would be through a temporary $0.09 per hundredweight increase in the Class I price under the order. The increase would only be applicable for the number of months necessary to cover the documented costs.

Evidence also will be taken at the hearing to determine whether emergency marketing conditions exist that would warrant omission of a recommended decision under the rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR 900.12(d)) with respect to any proposed amendments.

Interested parties who wish to introduce exhibits should provide the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing with four (4) copies of such exhibits for the official record. Additional copies should be made available for the use of other hearing participants. Any party that has submitted a proposal noticed herein, when participating as a witness, is required to make their testimony—if prepared as an exhibit—and any other exhibits, available to USDA officials prior to the start of the hearing on the day of their appearance. Individual dairy farmers are not subject to this requirement.

Copies of this notification of hearing may be obtained online at, http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy, or from the Hearing Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, STOP 9200—Room 1031, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9200.

Copies of the transcript of testimony and exhibits taken at the hearing will be made available for viewing at http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy after the hearing adjourns. If you wish to purchase a copy, arrangements may be made with the reporter at the hearing.

From the time that a hearing notice is issued and until the issuance of a final decision in a proceeding, Department employees involved in the decision making process are prohibited from discussing the merits of the hearing issues on an ex parte basis with any person having an interest in the proceeding. For this particular proceeding, the prohibition applies to employees in the following organizational units: Office of the Secretary of Agriculture; Office of the Administrator, AMS; Office of the General Counsel; and the AMS Dairy Program (Washington, DC office), and the offices of all Market Administrators. Procedural matters are not subject to the above prohibition and may be discussed at any time.

Testimony is invited on the following proposal or appropriate modifications to such proposal. The proposed amendment, as set forth below, has not received the approval of the Department.

Proposed by Southeast Milk, Inc., Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Premier Milk, Inc., Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., and Lone Star Milk Producers, L.C.

The proposal details substantial and extraordinary losses to the Florida dairy industry as a result of physical damages; heat stress to animals; market losses; and additional transportation costs stemming from Hurricane Irma. The proposal would provide for emergency relief for Florida handlers and producers for costs incurred September 6 through September 15, 2017. The categories of recovery costs requested include: (1) The minimum class price value of whole and skim milk dumped due to market unavailability during plant shutdowns; (2) additional transportation costs associated with milk movements resulting from the hurricane; (3) lost minimum location price value on milk movements out of market; and (4) price losses on distress sales of milk. Proposed amendments to the Florida Federal Milk Marketing Order are set out in the regulatory text below.

Proposed by Dairy Program, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Make such changes as may be necessary to make the entire marketing agreement and the order conform with any amendments thereto that may result from this hearing.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR part 1006 as follow:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0688; Product Identifier 2017-NE-23-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0163, dated August 10, 2016 (referred to hereafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0688.

We reviewed Zodiac Seats France Service Bulletin (SB) No. 537-25-003, Revision 1, dated August 29, 2016. The SB describes procedures for installing an anti-rotation device on the seat pan shaft to limit the rotation of the safety belt on ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes. We also reviewed Service Information Letter (SIL) 537-01, dated July 31, 2015. The SIL provides details to identify if the safety belt must be removed and replaced and provides instructions on safety belt storage to avoid this premature wear. 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 EASA, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspecting, modifying, and re-marking certain cabin attendant seats.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 55 seat assemblies installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1120; Product Identifier 2017-CE-030-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

We received information from UTC Aerospace Systems (UTC) that brake pad wear indicator pins were set incorrectly on certain Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Models 510, 680, and 680A airplanes equipped with brake assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 2-1706-1 and 2-1675-1, with certain serial numbers. Brakes overhauled by UTC may have wear indicator pins set longer than specified. UTC discovered this condition during their inspection of incoming brakes. This condition, if not corrected, could result in brake pad wear beyond the acceptable limits without indication and consequent loss of braking ability, which could lead to a runway excursion.

We reviewed UTC Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017; and UTC Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017. For the applicable models, the service information identifies the affected serial number brake assemblies and describes procedures for inspecting the wear indicator pins. 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. These UTC service bulletins are included as attachments with the Textron service letters discussed in the Other Related Service Information paragraph.

We also reviewed Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters SL510-32-08, SL680-32-15, and SL680A-32-05, all dated July 21, 2017. For the applicable airplane models, these service letters direct the operators to use Goodrich Service Bulletins 2-1706-1-32-1 and 2-1675-32-2. However, the Goodrich Service Bulletins that the Textron Aviation Inc. Service Letters refer to and intend for operators to use are titled UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1706-1-32-1, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017; and UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 2-1675-32-2, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2017. The UTC service bulletins are included as attachments to the Textron service letters.

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 668 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:

According to the manufacturer, the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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 small airplanes and domestic business jet transport airplanes to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(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 proposes to amend 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 establish Class E airspace at Manley Hot Springs Airport, Manley Hot Springs, AK, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0970, Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-6.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

This document proposes to amend 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 proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Manley Hot Springs Airport, Manley Hot Springs, AK. This airspace is necessary to accommodate the development of RNAV (IFR) operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport. Class E airspace would be established within a 6.3-mile radius of Manley Hot Springs Airport.

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.

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.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1064/Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-32.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

This document proposes to amend 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 proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Yuma Municipal Airport, Yuma, CO. This airspace is necessary to accommodate the development of RNAV (IFR) operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at the airport. Class E airspace would be established within a 6.4-mile radius of Yuma Municipal Airport.

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.

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.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register IGLD85 International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD 85 OMB Office of Management and Budget NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental) § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

The Black River flows southwest through the City of Port Huron, MI and empties into the St. Clair River just below the south end of Lake Huron. Large commercial freighters once traveled up the Black River to facilities past the Canadian National Railroad Bridge, but currently the river is mostly used by recreational vessels with a few small commercial vessels operating in the river. Large commercial vessels do not currently trade in the Black River.

The Military Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 73 feet and a vertical clearance of 13 feet above LWD in the closed position.

The Seventh Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 83 feet and a vertical clearance of 12 feet above LWD in the closed position.

The Tenth Street Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 90 feet and a vertical clearance of 18 feet above LWD in the closed position.

The Canadian National Railroad Bridge provides a horizontal clearance of 80 feet and a vertical clearance of 14 feet above LWD in the closed position.

The CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 0.09, is out of service and locked in the fully open position.

All five drawbridges provide an unlimited vertical clearance in the open position.

The CSX Railroad Bridge and Canadian National Railroad Bridge are not included in the existing regulation.

The current regulation allows the Military Street Bridge and the Seventh Street Bridge to operate on the hour and half-hour between May 1 and October 31, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except Federal Holidays. In April and November, between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 a.m., both bridges require a 3-hour advance notice for openings.

The Tenth Street Bridge is currently required to open on signal from May 1 through October 31, except from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. a 1-hour advance notice is required for openings. In April and November the bridge requires a 3-hour advance notice for openings at all times.

From December 1 through March 31 all three highway bridges requires at least 24 hours notice for openings.

As noted above, both the CSX Railroad and Canadian National Railroad bridges are not included in the existing regulation.

The City of Port Huron operates the three highway bridges and requested the winter operating dates to be expanded due to a lack of openings, use of the waterway has substantially changed, and early development of ice in the river that prevents most recreational vessels from transiting the waterway between November 1 and April 30. They requested the winter operating schedules (with 12-hours advance notice from vessels) to apply November 1 through April 30 each year.

In addition to reviewing winter operating dates we have reviewed the current operating schedules for all drawbridges on the waterway. During our coordination with the City of Port Huron and stakeholders, concerns were also received regarding vehicle congestion and predictable bridge openings when the Military Street and Seventh Street Bridges are opened simultaneously for vessels. Both bridges currently open on the hour and half-hour. This proposed rule is expected to reflect the current usage of the waterway by marine entities during the navigation season and winter periods, improve both marine and vehicular traffic mobility by reducing congestion and delays, simplify the schedules and language in the existing regulation, and provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.

This proposed rule alternates, or staggers, openings of the three highway bridges with Military Street and Tenth Street opening on the hour and half-hour, and Seventh Street (the middle highway bridge), on the quarter and three-quarter-hour, thereby providing predictable bridge openings and avoiding all of the highway bridges opening simultaneously, and allowing continuous vessel movements through the highway bridges. To prevent congestion at the bridges the drawbridges will open at any time five or more vessels are waiting for an opening. This change is expected to reduce vehicular traffic congestion and delays, and reduce the chance vessels will be stuck between the highway bridges and waiting for extended times for bridge openings.

The Tenth Street Bridge is the furthest upriver highway bridge and provides a higher vertical clearance than the Military Street or the Seventh Street drawbridges, allowing most vessels to pass under the bridge without an opening. The volume of marine traffic and upriver marine facilities that require Tenth Street Bridge openings is significantly lower than Military and Seventh Street Bridges but the vehicular traffic is considerably higher than the other highway bridges. Between May 1 and October 31 this proposed rule will allow the Tenth Street Bridge to open on the hour and half-hour from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. From 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. the bridge will require a 1-hour advance notice for openings. This schedule is expected to provide predictable bridge openings for vehicles to cross the river at any time while still providing for the reasonable needs of navigation. Between November 1 and April 30 the bridge will require a 12-hours advance notice to open.

The Canadian National Railroad Bridge normally remains in the open to navigation position and only closes to navigation to accommodate the passage of trains. This proposed rule will add the Canadian National Bridge to the current regulation. The bridge will open on signal at all times between May 1 and October 31, and will open if 12-hours advance notice is provided between November 1 and April 30, matching the winter schedules of the highway bridges.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 ability that vessels can still transit the drawbridges by giving advanced notice at all times of the year.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridges may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because we coordinated with the marina operators and the local yacht clubs and incorporated their concerns into the proposed regulation.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would call for no 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a Memorandum for the Record are not required for this proposed rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

On September 14, 2017, New Orleans Convention Company, Inc. notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on April 21, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5, above Head of Passes, off Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile length of the river.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on April 21, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.

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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a one mile section of the Lower Mississippi River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

On November 7, 2017, the Association of General Contractors of America notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on February 27, 2018. The fireworks will to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 96.2, Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile length of the river.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7:30 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on February 27, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 95.7 and MM 96.7, Above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.

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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a one-mile section of the Lower Mississippi River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

On March 14, 2017, the NOLA 2018 Foundation notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on April 22, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5, above Head of Passes, off Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile length of the river.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within a one-mile range of the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8:00 p.m. through 9:00 p.m. on April 22, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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 and short duration of the waterway closure, which will remain in effect for one hour on a one-mile section of the waterway. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.

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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a one-mile section of the Lower Mississippi River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed 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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

On December 1, 2017, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on proposed rules governing the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements.1 The NPRM addresses certain issues outlined by a 2006 notice of inquiry published by the Office,2 which received comments from multiple parties,3 as well as additional issues that have subsequently arisen. While the NPRM is primarily focused on reporting practices for the cable license, some of the rules proposed by the NPRM would also apply to remitters making use of the section 119 (satellite) or chapter 10 (“DART”) licenses.4 The Office welcomed public input on the proposed changes set forth in the NPRM, as well as other suggestions on streamlining or otherwise improving reporting practices for the section 111 license.

The Office has determined that interested parties should be given an opportunity to address the proposed regulation and any comments submitted in response to the NPRM before the Office adopts a final rule. Accordingly, the Office concludes that reply comments would be appropriate. Interested parties must submit written reply comments in accordance with the deadline specified in the DATES section above. Reply commenters should limit their remarks to the issues or concerns presented in the initial comments.

Typically, the Office's communications with participants about ongoing rulemakings do not include discussions about the substance of the proceeding apart from the noticed phases of written comments. The Office has determined that informal communication with interested parties might be beneficial in this rulemaking, such as to discuss nuances of proposed regulatory language. Any such communication may occur before and after public comments are submitted to the Office, but before a final rule has issued. Parties wishing to participate in informal discussions with the Office should submit a written request using the contact information above.

The primary means to communicate views in the course of the rulemaking will, however, continue to be through the submission of written comments. In other words, informal communication will supplement, not substitute for, the written record. Should a party meet with the Office regarding this rulemaking, the participating party will be responsible for submitting a list of attendees and written summary of any oral communication to the Office, which will be made publicly available on the Office's Web site or regulations.gov. In sum, while the Office is establishing the option of informal meetings in this rulemaking, it will require that all such communications be on the record to ensure the greatest possible transparency.

I. What is EPA proposing?

This action proposes to revise the use conditions for three flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and R-441A, used in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. This action would replace four of the five use conditions in our previous hydrocarbon refrigerants rules (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015) with the updated Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 60335-2-24 (2nd edition, April 28, 2017), “Household and Similar Electrical Appliances—Safety—Part 2-24: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers.” UL Standard 60335-2-24 supersedes the current edition of UL Standard 250 (10th edition, August 25, 2000), “Household Refrigerators and Freezers,” which EPA previously incorporated by reference in the use conditions of the acceptability listings for these three refrigerants (76 FR 78832, December 20, 2011; 80 FR 19454, April 10, 2015). The use conditions would include a charge limit of 150 grams (5.29 ounces) for each separate refrigerant circuit in a refrigerator or freezer, consistent with UL Standard 60335-2-24. The use conditions that would be replaced are reflected in the provisions of UL Standard 60335-2-24 and would be redundant of the standard. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is taking this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. This action does not place any significant burden on the regulated community and ensures consistency with industry standards. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.

If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

If requested by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice, EPA will hold a public hearing to accept oral testimony on this proposal on or before December 26, 2017 in Washington, DC. EPA will post all information regarding any public hearing on this proposed action, including whether a hearing will be held, its location, date, and time, if applicable, and any updates online at https://www.epa.gov/snap. In addition, you may contact Ms. Chenise Farquharson at (202) 564-7768 or by email at [email protected] with public hearing requests and inquiries. EPA does not intend to publish any future notices in the Federal Register regarding a public hearing on this proposed rule and directs all inquiries regarding a hearing to the Web site and contact person identified above.

This notice of proposed rulemaking would regulate the use of three flammable hydrocarbon refrigerants, isobutane (R-600a), propane (R-290), and the hydrocarbon blend R-441A, in new household refrigerators, freezers, and combination refrigerators and freezers. Table 1 identifies industry subsectors that might want to explore the use of these flammable refrigerants in this end-use or that might work with equipment using these refrigerants in the future. Regulated entities may include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 82. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

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

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

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0226. This rule contains no new requirements for reporting or recordkeeping.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule.

The use conditions of this rule would apply to manufacturers of new household refrigerators and freezers, that choose to use flammable refrigerants. This action would allow equipment manufacturers to use flammable refrigerants at a higher charge size than previously allowed in new household refrigerators and freezers but does not mandate such use; the change to the use conditions allows more flexibility for manufacturers in the design of equipment and thus reduces regulatory burden to the regulated community. In some cases, it may reduce costs by allowing manufacturers to design equipment with a single, larger refrigerant circuit instead of multiple, smaller refrigerant circuits for the same piece of equipment.

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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in risk screens for the various substitutes.1 2 3 The risk screens are available in the docket for this rulemaking.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy.

This action involves a technical standard. EPA is proposing to revise the use conditions for the household refrigerators and freezers end-use by incorporating by reference the UL Standard 60335-2-24, “Safety Requirements for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2: Particular Requirements for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers” (2nd edition, April 2017), which establishes requirements for the evaluation of household and similar electrical appliances, and safe use of flammable refrigerants. UL Standard 60335-2-24 supersedes the current edition of UL Standard 250, Supplement A, “Requirements for Refrigerators and Freezers Employing a Flammable Refrigerant in the Refrigerating System” (10th Edition, August 2000. EPA's revision to the use conditions will replace the 2000 UL standard 250 with the 2017 UL standard 60335-2-24. This standard is available at https://standardscatalog.ul.com/standards/en/standard_60335-2-24_2, and may be purchased by mail at: COMM 2000, 151 Eastern Avenue, Bensenville, IL 60106; Email: [email protected]; Telephone: 1-888-853-3503 in the U.S. or Canada (other countries dial 1-415-352-2178); Internet address: http://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL60335-2-24_2_B_20170428(ULStandards2). The cost of UL 60335-2-24 is $454 for an electronic copy and $567 for hardcopy. UL also offers a subscription service to the Standards Certification Customer Library (SCCL) that allows unlimited access to their standards and related documents. The cost of obtaining this standard is not a significant financial burden for equipment manufacturers and purchase is not required for those selling, installing and servicing the equipment. Therefore, EPA concludes that the UL standard being incorporated by reference is reasonably available.

The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action's health and environmental risk assessments are contained in the risk screens for the various substitutes. The risk screens are available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Table of Contents I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? II. Background A. What are the applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements? B. What are the applicable federal water quality criteria that EPA is proposing to withdraw? III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

No one is affected by the proposed action contained in this document. This proposed action would merely serve to withdraw certain federal water quality criteria that have been applicable to California that are no longer needed in light of approved state water quality criteria. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person identified in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On May 18, 2000, EPA promulgated a final rule known as the “California Toxics Rule” (“CTR”) at 40 CFR 131.38. This final rule established numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California, because the State had not complied fully with Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (65 FR 31682).

Consistent with the basic tenet of the CWA, EPA developed the water quality standards program emphasizing State primacy. Although in the CTR EPA promulgated toxic criteria for California, EPA prefers that states maintain primacy, revise their own standards, and achieve full compliance (see 57 FR 60860, December 22, 1992). As described in the preamble to the final CTR (see 65 FR 31681 (May 18, 2000)), when California adopts, and EPA approves, water quality criteria that meet the requirements of the CWA, EPA will issue a rule amending the CTR to withdraw the federal criteria applicable to California.

Consistent with the procedure described in the preamble to the final CTR, EPA is proposing to amend the federal regulations to withdraw certain federally promulgated human health (water and organisms) water quality criteria and certain freshwater aquatic life (acute and chronic) water quality criteria, applicable in California. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment because the criteria adopted by the State and approved by EPA, while as protective for CWA purposes as the federally promulgated criteria, are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria that EPA is now proposing to withdraw.

This action proposes to amend the federal regulations to withdraw human health (water & organisms) criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek, California. In addition, it proposes to amend the federal regulations to withdraw freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries.

On May 18, 2000, in the CTR, EPA promulgated federal regulations establishing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. On November 3, 2011, California completed its adoption process to incorporate water quality criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane, for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek. The State calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-specific objectives. On December 13, 2011, the State submitted the site-specific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval.

On April 9, 2013, EPA approved site-specific objectives for that segment of New Alamo Creek and that segment of Ulatis Creek. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the objectives in Resolution No. R5-2010-0047, the California State Water Resources Control Board approved of the objectives in Resolution 2011-0036 and EPA subsequently approved the State Board action.

Because California now has site-specific human health (for water and organisms) criteria approved by EPA for CWA purposes for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek, EPA has determined that the federally promulgated human health (water and organisms) criteria are no longer needed for these particular waters. The incremental cancer risk levels associated with the California site-specific objectives, based on the risk assessment in EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2006), would range from 10−4.55 to 10−4.91. EPA determined that these objectives assure that cancer risk to the most highly exposed population would not exceed a 10−4 cancer risk level, even if the population consumed 2 L/day of water and up to 17.5 g/day or more of fish/shellfish from the segments for a 70-year lifetime. States and authorized Tribes have the flexibility to adopt water quality criteria that result in a risk level higher than 10−6, up to the 10−5 level. That flexibility is constrained, however, by the need for careful consideration of the associated exposure parameter assumptions, and whether the resulting criteria would expose sensitive subpopulations consuming fish at unsuppressed rates to no more than a 10−4 cancer risk. Thus, EPA approved the State's site-specific objectives, which are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's site-specific objectives were scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the segment of New Alamo Creek and the segment of Ulatis Creek. More information on EPA's action, which approved California's adopted objectives, including EPA's approval letter and Record of Decision, can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303.

The following has been excerpted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Central Valley Region (Basin Plan)—Resolution No. R5-2010-0047. Attachment 1 includes under the heading “ORGANIC CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES,” California's recently adopted site-specific objectives for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane, for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek.

As explained above, EPA seeks public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated criteria because although these state criteria have been determined to be scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the particular waters and otherwise meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, the state criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria (see Table 1). This proposal will result in the withdrawal of federal human health (water & organisms) criteria under the CTR for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for a segment of New Alamo Creek and a segment of Ulatis Creek. However, the criteria for chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane for other waters in California that are currently part of the CTR will remain in the federal promulgations.

On May 18, 2000, in the CTR, EPA promulgated federal regulations establishing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. On July 11, 2016, California completed its adoption process to incorporate water quality objectives for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. The State calls these criteria site-specific water quality objectives or site-specific objectives. On July 19, 2016, the State submitted the site-specific objectives to EPA Region 9 for review and approval. On December 12, 2016, EPA approved site-specific objectives for lead for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted these site-specific objectives under Resolution No. R15-004. The California State Water Resources Control Board in Resolution No. 2015-0069 subsequently approved the Regional Board action on these site-specific objectives, and EPA subsequently approved the State Board action.

Because California now has site-specific objectives for lead for the protection of aquatic life, approved by EPA for CWA purposes, for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries, EPA has determined that the federally promulgated freshwater acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for lead are no longer needed for these particular waters. 40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)(ii) allows States to establish water quality criteria that are “. . . modified to reflect site-specific conditions”, and, site-specific criteria still must be based on a sound scientific rationale in order to protect the designated use. The State's site-specific objectives for lead were based on a recalculation of the water quality objectives established in 40 CFR 131.38 using the EPA Recalculation Procedure; this procedure takes into account updates or revisions in the national dataset used in the national water quality criterion development. EPA found that the State's application of the Recalculation Procedure for lead to be consistent with guidance for the development of site-specific standards using recalculation procedures. Thus, EPA approved the State's site-specific objectives for lead, which are less stringent than the federally promulgated criteria, because EPA determined that the State's site-specific objectives were scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries and met the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131. More information on EPA's action, which approved California's adopted objectives, including EPA's approval letter and Record of Decision can be accessed at OW docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303.

The following has been excerpted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board—Attachment A to: Revision of Lead Water Quality Objectives for Los Angeles River and Tributaries, Resolution No. R15-004.

As explained above, EPA seeks public comment before withdrawing the federally promulgated criteria because although these state criteria have been determined to be scientifically sound and protective of the designated use(s) for the particular waters and otherwise meet the requirements of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 131, the state criteria are less stringent than the promulgated federal criteria (see Table 2 in this preamble). This proposal will result in the withdrawal of federal freshwater acute and chronic criteria for lead under the CTR for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries. However, the criteria for lead for other waters in California that are currently part of the CTR will remain in the federal promulgations.

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

This action is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This proposed rule is expected to provide meaningful burden reduction by withdrawal of certain federally promulgated criteria in certain waters of California.

This action does not impose any new information-collection burden under the PRA because it is administratively withdrawing federal requirements that are no longer needed in California. It does not include any information-collection, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 131 and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0286.

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. Small entities, such as small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule.

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. As this action proposes to withdraw certain federally promulgated criteria, the action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule imposes no regulatory requirements or costs on any tribal government. It does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, the relationship between the federal government and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). EPA has previously determined, based on the most current science and EPA's CWA Section 304(a) recommended criteria, that California's adopted and EPA-approved criteria are protective of human health.

For the reasons set out in the preamble title 40, Chapter I, part 131 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

The Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP) requires that NMFS, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, specify quotas for surfclam and ocean quahog for up to a three-year period, with annual review. It is the policy of the Council that the catch limit selected allow for sustainable fishing to continue at that level for at least 10 years for surfclams, and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In addition to this, the Council policy also considers the economic impact of the quotas. Regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR 27481; May 19, 1998) added Maine ocean quahogs (locally known as Maine mahogany quahogs) to the management unit and provided for a small artisanal fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters north of 43°50′ N. lat, with an annual quota within a range of 17,000 to 100,000 Maine bu (0.6 to 3.52 million L). As specified in Amendment 10, the Maine ocean quahog quota is allocated separately from the quota specified for the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations implementing Amendment 13 to the FMP (68 FR 69970; December 16, 2003) established the authority to propose multi-year quotas with an annual quota review to be conducted by the Council to determine if the multi-year quota specifications remain appropriate for each year. NMFS then publishes the annual final quotas in the Federal Register. The fishing quotas must ensure overfishing will not occur. In recommending these quotas, the Council considered the most recent stock assessments and other relevant scientific information.

In June 2017, the Council voted to recommend maintaining for 2018-2020 the status quo quota levels of 5.33 million bu (288 million L) for the ocean quahog fishery, 3.40 million bu (181 million L) for the Atlantic surfclam fishery, and 100,000 Maine bu (3.52 million L) for the Maine ocean quahog fishery.

We propose to implement the Council's recommended specifications for 2018 and project that the Council's recommended specifications for 2019 and 2020 will be implemented in those years. Because the Council will review available information in the interim years and adjustments to quotas may occur to account for annual catch limit (ACL) overages, the 2019 and 2020 quotas proposed are considered the projected specifications. We will provide notice in the Federal Register before the 2019 and 2020 fishing years announcing the final quotas being implemented.

Tables 1 and 2 show proposed and projected quotas for the 2018-2020 Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishery.

The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog quotas are specified in “industry” bushels of 1.88 ft3 (53.24 L) per bushel, while the Maine ocean quahog quota is specified in Maine bushels of 1.24 ft3 (35.24 L) per bushel. Because Maine ocean quahogs are the same species as ocean quahogs, both fisheries are assessed under the same overfishing definition. When the two quota amounts (ocean quahog and Maine ocean quahog) are added, the total allowable harvest is below the level that would result in overfishing for the entire stock. The 2018-2020 quotas are nearly identical (within 100 mt) to those implemented in the 2014-2016 specifications, which were carried over for 2017.

The proposed 2018-2020 status quo surfclam quota was developed in June 2017 after reviewing the results of the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 61 for Atlantic surfclam. The surfclam quota recommendation is consistent with the SAW 61 finding that the Atlantic surfclam stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. Based on this information, the Council is recommending, and NMFS is proposing, to maintain the status quo surfclam quota of 3.40 million bu (181 million L) for 2018-2020 (see table 1).

Consistent with the Council recommendation, we are proposing the following for ocean quahog. The proposed 2018-2020 non-Maine quota for ocean quahog is the status quo quota of 5.33 million bu (288 million L).

The 2018-2020 proposed quota for Maine ocean quahogs is the status quo level of 100,000 Maine bu (3.52 million L). The proposed quota represents the maximum allowable quota under the FMP.

In June 2017, the Council voted to recommend that the minimum size limit for surfclams continue to be suspended for 2018. The minimum size limit has been suspended annually since 2005. Minimum size suspension may not be taken unless discard, catch, and biological sampling data indicate that 30 percent or more of the Atlantic surfclam resource have a shell length less than 4.75 inches (120 mm), and the overall reduced size is not attributable to harvest from beds where growth of the individual clams has been reduced because of density-dependent factors.

Commercial surfclam data for 2017 were analyzed to determine the percentage of surfclams that were smaller than the minimum size requirement. The analysis indicated that 10.4 percent of the overall commercial landings, to date, were composed of surfclams that were less than the 4.75-inch (120-mm) default minimum size. Based on the information available, the Regional Administrator concurs with the Council's recommendation, and is proposing to suspend the minimum size limit for Atlantic surfclams in the upcoming fishing year (January 1 through December 31, 2018).

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This action does not introduce any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements. This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.

This proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12866.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows:

For Regulatory Flexibility Analysis purposes only, NMFS has established a uniform size standard for small businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts of less than $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. In 2016, 349 fishing firms held at least one surfclam or ocean quahog permit. Using the $11 million cutoff for firms, there are 341 entities that are small and 8 that are large. In order to provide a more accurate count and description of the small directly regulated entities, landings data were evaluated to select only firms that were active in either the surfclam or the ocean quahog fishery. There are 24 active fishing firms, of which 22 are small entities and 2 are large entities.

Because the proposed quotas are status quo, the action would have no impacts on the way the fishery operates. These measures are expected to provide similar fishing opportunities in 2018-2020 when compared to earlier years. As such, revenue changes are not expected in 2018-2020 when compared to landings and revenues in 2017. Therefore, adoption of the proposed specifications are not expected to have impacts on entities participating in the fishery if landings are similar to those that occurred in 2017.

Maintaining the suspension of the surfclam minimum shell length requirement would result in no change when compared to 2014-2016. The minimum shell length requirement has been suspended each year since 2005. The proposed action would have no impact on the way the fishery operates, and is not expected to disproportionately affect small entities.

As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.