Federal Register Vol. 82, No.78,

I. Summary of the Final Rule

On October 5, 2016, the Bureau released a final rule to create comprehensive consumer protections for prepaid accounts under Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (Prepaid Accounts Final Rule).1 When it was issued, the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule had a general effective date of October 1, 2017. Through its efforts to support industry implementation of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, the Bureau learned that some industry participants believed that they would have difficulty complying with certain provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule that would have gone into effect on October 1, 2017. In order to facilitate compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, and to allow an opportunity for the Bureau to assess whether any additional adjustments to the Rule are appropriate, the Bureau proposed to extend the general effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule by six months, to April 1, 2018 (Effective Date NPRM).2

Based on comments received, the Bureau is issuing this final rule to delay the October 1, 2017 effective date for the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule by six months, to April 1, 2018. The Bureau is also making conforming amendments to certain regulatory text and commentary adopted in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule to reflect the effective date delay.

The Bureau plans to release a notice of proposed rulemaking address at least two issues that have been identified as areas where the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule may be posing particular complexities for implementation. When the Bureau does so it will also seek comment on whether any further extension of the effective date is needed in light of the specific changes proposed.

In the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, the Bureau extended Regulation E coverage to prepaid accounts and adopted provisions specific to such accounts, and generally expanded Regulation Z's coverage to overdraft credit features that may be offered in conjunction with prepaid accounts.3 Upon issuing the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, the Bureau initiated robust efforts to support industry implementation.4 Information regarding the Bureau's Prepaid Accounts Final Rule implementation initiatives and available resources can be found on the Bureau's regulatory implementation Web site at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/implementation-guidance/prepaid-rule/.

As published, the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule had a general effective date of October 1, 2017. As discussed in the Effective Date NPRM, as part of its efforts to support industry implementation, the Bureau has discussed implementation efforts with a number of industry participants. As a result of those discussions, the Bureau learned that some industry participants were concerned for a variety of reasons that they would have difficulty in complying with certain aspects of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule by October 1, 2017 while also ensuring continued availability of their prepaid products and with minimal disruption to consumers. For example, although the Bureau put in place an exception in Regulation E § 1005.18(h)(2) pursuant to which financial institutions are not required to pull and replace prepaid account access devices and packaging materials with non-compliant disclosures that were produced in the normal course of business prior to October 1, 2017, some industry participants indicated that they believed that they should in fact pull and replace non-compliant packaging due to concerns about legal and regulatory exposure at both the Federal and State level, and in particular due to developments following release of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. Industry had also raised related concerns regarding the constrained production capacity of packaging manufacturers and other supply chain limitations resulting from increased industry demand leading up to the October 1, 2017 effective date.

In addition, in the course of working to implement the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, some industry participants raised concerns about what they describe as unanticipated complexities arising from the interaction of certain aspects of the rule with certain business models and practices, including those newly adopted, that they did not fully address in their comment letters on the Prepaid Accounts NPRM, which may complicate implementation and affect consumers.

Based on its initial outreach to industry before issuing the Effective Date NPRM, the Bureau believed that a six-month delay would be sufficient for industry participants to ensure that they can comply with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule with minimal disruption to consumers. The Bureau explained that, in particular, a six-month extension would both allow more time for package printing and allow pull-and-replace processes at retail locations to occur after the winter holiday season, which is a particularly busy time for retailers. Indeed, the Bureau understands that industry often effectuates pull-and-replace processes in the spring for precisely this reason. The Bureau also believed that a six-month delay would allow the Bureau adequate opportunity to consider possible additional amendments to the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, and for industry to implement any such changes, without unnecessary disruption to consumers' access to, and use of, prepaid accounts.

The Bureau did not propose to delay the effective date of the requirement to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau in Regulation E § 1005.19(f)(2), which is October 1, 2018. The Bureau expected to have its agreement submission process in place by October 1, 2018, and, as discussed in the Effective Date NPRM, the Bureau's pre-proposal outreach had not indicated that industry participants were concerned that they would not be able to meet the agreement submission effective date.

In the Effective Date NPRM, the Bureau did not propose to amend any other substantive requirements of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. The purpose of that notice was not to seek comment generally on policy decisions made in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule that industry or other stakeholders might wish the Bureau to reconsider. Rather, the Bureau stated that it would continue its outreach to industry and other stakeholders to understand their experiences in implementing the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule.

On March 9, 2017, the Bureau released the Effective Date NPRM with a request for public comment. It was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2017.5 The Bureau solicited comment on all aspects of the Effective Date NPRM. In particular, the Bureau asked commenters to provide specific detail and any available data regarding current and planned practices, as well as relevant knowledge and specific facts about any benefits, costs, or other impacts on industry, consumers, and other stakeholders of the Effective Date NPRM. The Bureau also solicited comment about the impact of the Effective Date NPRM on consumers who use prepaid accounts. The Bureau solicited comment regarding the proposed extension of the general effective date to April 1, 2018, as well as alternative dates for extension.

The comment period for the Effective Date NPRM closed on April 5, 2017. The Bureau received 28 comment letters from consumer advocacy groups; national and regional trade associations; members of the prepaid industry, including issuing banks and credit unions, program managers, and a digital wallet provider; several think tanks; an association of State financial regulators; a group of State attorneys general; and several commenters who did not identify their affiliations.6

Industry and trade association commenters all supported the Bureau's proposal to delay the effective date of most provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule; many expressly supported the Bureau's proposed six-month delay. A number of commenters cited the Bureau's concerns that some industry participants may need additional time to comply with the rule, in particular stating that providers might need to pull and replace non-compliant packaging notwithstanding the exception in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule for prepaid account access devices and packaging materials with non-compliant disclosures that were produced in the normal course of business prior to the effective date of the rule.

A prepaid issuer, a digital wallet provider, and a trade association each expressed support for a six-month delay of the effective date, contingent on the Bureau also revisiting the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule to address certain substantive provisions of the rule that they argued required changes to disclosures and business models that could not be implemented by April 1, 2018. The provisions that they cited relate to the linking of credit cards with digital wallets that are capable of storing funds and to error resolution and limitations on liability for prepaid accounts where the financial institution has not completed its consumer identification and verification process with respect to the account. These commenters requested a 12-month delay to the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's general effective date if the Bureau were unwilling to revisit those issues.

Some industry and trade association commenters argued that the Bureau should delay the effective date further by 12 months; two trade associations advocated for an 18-month delay. The commenters who requested a delay longer than six months cited a variety of reasons, including, for example, the time needed to develop and review new and updated disclosures and related materials; time required to retool J-hook card packaging to accommodate disclosures required by the rule; limitations in production capacity to print new prepaid card collateral; and the time needed to coordinate system updates with processors, vendors, and other service providers. A few commenters cited other reasons as well, such as the need to develop new systems and operational processes related to providing longer account transaction histories and calculating summary totals of fees. One trade association stated that providers need to develop an automated process to track cardholder agreements for purposes of submitting those agreements to the Bureau, which it stated would need to be in place as of the October 1, 2017 effective date in order to adequately track agreements. Another trade association commenter urged the Bureau to delay the effective date for longer than six months so that the Bureau could conduct a comprehensive study on the effects that the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule will have on consumers, specifically related to availability of prepaid accounts and their costs to consumers.

One credit union trade association commenter, requesting an 18-month extension, cited concerns that the proposed delayed effective date would coincide with the effective date of other regulations promulgated by the Bureau, in particular the provisions of the Bureau's mortgage servicing rule pertaining to successors-in-interest and the provision of periodic statements to consumers who have filed for bankruptcy. An association of State financial regulators also stated the compliance investments necessitated by other regulations such as the increased data collection/reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and additional identification requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act/Customer Due Diligence rule promulgated by another federal agency as a reason for its support of a six-month delay.

A coalition of 27 consumer advocacy groups urged the Bureau to implement the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule as soon as possible, citing the benefits of the rule for consumers who use prepaid accounts, and expressing concern that further delays in the effective date would cause harm to consumers. They stated that, if an extension is warranted, the Bureau should give the minimum extension necessary—which in their view would be no longer than the proposed six months—and not provide any further extensions. Another consumer advocacy group supported the Bureau's proposal to delay the rule's effective date by six months while reiterating that expeditious implementation of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule remains essential to providing comprehensive consumer protections to users of prepaid accounts.

Two think tanks urged the Bureau to consider the possible negative effects on consumers of any delay in the effective date of the rule. Another think tank supported the six-month delay, stating that otherwise there is a risk that providers might pull cards without replacing them, thus hampering consumers' access to those products.

The commenters who did not identify their affiliation varied in their comments, either expressing support for the proposed delay in effective date or arguing that the effective date should not be extended to ensure that consumers receive the protections of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. A group of State attorneys general expressed support for the rule generally but did not comment specifically on the effective date of the rule.

Safe harbor for early compliance. Two trade association commenters urged the Bureau to establish a safe harbor for prepaid providers that comply with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule (or portions of it) prior to the rule's effective date. These commenters expressed concerns that prepaid providers may be exposed to potential liability if they comply with the rule prior to the effective date, as they suggested the possibility that there may be some conflict between the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule and current requirements for payroll card accounts and government benefit accounts, though they did not provide any specific examples. One commenter stated that early compliance would benefit consumers and should not be discouraged.

Section 1005.19(f)(2). The Bureau did not propose to delay the October 1, 2018 effective date of the requirement that prepaid account issuers submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau, which is set forth in Regulation E § 1005.19(f)(2). The Bureau did, however, solicit comment on whether it should also delay that effective date. Commenters generally did not express concerns that the October 1, 2018 agreement submission effective date would create compliance issues. One of the trade association commenters advocating for an 18-month delay of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's general effective date suggested that the Bureau contemplate a proportional delay for § 1005.19(f)(2), stating that it would help relieve pressure on credit unions that may need to submit credit card agreements pursuant to Regulation Z § 1026.58 for covered separate credit features accessible by hybrid prepaid-credit cards. Another trade association expressed concerns pertaining to general compliance with the requirement to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau, but did not suggest a delay to the effective date in § 1005.19(f)(2).

A program manager expressed concerns about the challenges it is facing in complying with the agreement posting requirement in § 1005.19, which appears to be due, at least in part, to the number of prepaid account agreements it manages. This commenter suggested making the effective dates set forth in § 1005.19(f)(1) and (2) consistent, but did not request that the Bureau delay the effective date for the agreement submission requirement. A commenter who did not identify his or her affiliation supported the Bureau's proposal not to delay the effective date of the agreement submission requirement, but suggested that the Bureau revisit that decision six months in advance of the effective date.

Substantive changes to the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. As noted above, the Bureau did not propose in the Effective Date NPRM to amend any other substantive provisions of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, nor was the purpose of the Effective Date NPRM to seek comment generally on policy decisions made in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule that industry or other stakeholders might wish the Bureau to reconsider. Nonetheless, many commenters used their comment letters to advocate for retaining, modifying, or eliminating various provisions of the rule. Commenters also suggested that the Bureau could use the additional time provided by delaying the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule to revisit these issues.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Bureau is finalizing as proposed a six-month delay of the October 1, 2017 effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. In order to effect this change, the Bureau is also amending Regulation E §§ 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) and (h), and 1005.19(f)(1), and related commentary, to reflect the delayed effective date.

The Bureau continues to believe that the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule will provide significant benefits to consumers and that, therefore, expeditious implementation remains essential to provide comprehensive consumer protections to users of prepaid accounts. Having reviewed the comments received, the Bureau continues to believe that a six-month delay of the effective date, when added to the nearly 12 months previously provided for in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, allows sufficient time for industry to implement the rule and provides for an appropriate balance between the interests of the consumers who will receive the benefits of the rule and the needs of industry for an adequate implementation period. The Bureau appreciates the issues raised by commenters advocating for a longer delay to the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's effective date, but does not believe that a longer delay is in fact warranted at this time.

Based on industry outreach efforts and the comments received in response to the Effective Date NPRM, the Bureau has determined that it should revisit at least two substantive issues through a separate notice and comment rulemaking process. Those issues relate to the linking of credit cards into digital wallets that are capable of storing funds and to error resolution and limitations on liability for prepaid accounts that cannot be registered, have not yet been registered, or for which consumers have attempted but have not successfully completed the registration process. The Bureau is continuing to evaluate other concerns raised by industry and other stakeholders, including those discussed in comments on the Effective Date NPRM, and may address a limited number of other topics as well in its forthcoming proposal. The Bureau also will seek comment on whether any further extension of the effective date is needed in light of the specific changes proposed.

Safe harbor for early compliance. The Bureau agrees with commenters that early compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule could benefit both industry and consumers. The Bureau is not aware of any conflicts between the requirements of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule and the current regulations applying to accounts that will be covered by the rule, nor were any specified by commenters. To the extent that financial institutions are engaged in consumer-friendly practices that are not specifically required under current regulations, the Bureau encourages those institutions to continue those practices, whether or not those practices are required by the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. For example, financial institutions that already provide access to more than 60 days of account history to all current accountholders, or that provide full Regulation E error resolution and limited liability protections to their accountholders, are encouraged to continue to do so in advance of the effective date. However, financial institutions should ensure that their disclosures do not suggest to consumers that they are engaged in a consumer-friendly practice that they have not yet implemented.

The Bureau notes that the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule already contemplates that some aspects of the rule will be phased in, particularly with respect to the exception that does not require financial institutions to pull and replace non-compliant packaging that was manufactured, printed, or otherwise produced in the normal course of business prior to the effective date of the rule. Thus, the Bureau is not adding an explicit safe harbor for early compliance, although the Bureau does not believe that the absence of one will prevent financial institutions from implementing practices that are required by the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule prior to the effective date. The Bureau will seek comment in its forthcoming proposal on whether there are in fact any conflicts between requirements of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule and the current regulations applying to accounts that will be covered by the rule that would merit a more formal safe harbor.

Section 1005.19(f)(2). The Bureau is maintaining the October 1, 2018 effective date set forth in Regulation E § 1005.19(f)(2) for the agreement submission requirement, as proposed. In the Effective Date NPRM, the Bureau indicated that its industry outreach had not indicated that the effective date of this provision was causing significant compliance concerns in and of itself, and the comments to the Effective Date NPRM support that conclusion. The Bureau does not believe that the few concerns raised by commenters warrant a delay to the October 1, 2018 effective date.

The Bureau is exercising its rulemaking authority pursuant to EFTA section 904(a) and (c), Dodd-Frank Act sections 1022(b)(1) and 1032(a), and TILA section 105(a) to delay the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule.

The legal authority for the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule is described in detail in the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's Supplementary Information.7 As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, EFTA section 904(a) and (c) 8 authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of EFTA and provide that such regulations may contain such classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions, for any class of electronic fund transfers or remittance transfers as in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of EFTA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith. As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a) 9 directs the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA and provides that such regulations may contain such additional requirements, classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for all or any class of transactions as in the judgment of the Bureau are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.10 Section 1032(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act11 provides that the Bureau may prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service, both initially and over the term of the product or service, are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers in a manner that permits consumers to understand the costs, benefits, and risks associated with the product or service, in light of the facts and circumstances. Additionally, under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1),12 the Bureau has general authority to prescribe rules as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.

EFTA, TILA, and Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act are Federal consumer financial laws. Accordingly, in finalizing this rule, the Bureau is exercising its authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) 13 to prescribe rules under EFTA, TILA, and Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act that carry out the purposes and objectives and prevent evasion of those laws. Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act 14 prescribes certain standards for rulemaking that the Bureau must follow in exercising its authority under section 1022(b)(1).

Regulation E § 1005.18(b)(2) describes the short form disclosure content requirements for prepaid accounts. Section 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) contains requirements specifically regarding additional fee types. Section 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D) describes the timing requirements for the initial assessment of an additional fee types disclosure, and § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(E) describes the timing for the periodic reassessment and update of additional fee types disclosures. The Bureau is revising the dates in the regulatory text and headings in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D)(1) through (3) and in comments 18(b)(2)(ix)(D)(1)-1, 18(b)(2)(ix)(D)(2)-1, 18(b)(2)(ix)(E)(2)-1.i through iii, and 18(b)(2)(ix)(E)(3)-1 to reflect the new April 1, 2018 effective date. The Bureau is not, however, changing the October 1, 2014 date in § 1005.18(b)(2)(ix)(D)(1) and related commentary, which is the beginning of the time frame for which financial institutions may calculate additional fee types to disclose, so as not to inconvenience financial institutions that have already prepared their additional fee types calculations in reliance on that date.

Regulation E § 1005.18(h) sets forth several provisions to make clearer the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's general October 1, 2017 effective date. The Bureau is revising the dates in the regulatory text and headings throughout § 1005.18(h) and in comments 18(h)-1, 2, 6.i and 6.ii to reflect the new April 1, 2018 effective date.

Regulation E § 1005.19(f)(1) sets forth the general effective date for the prepaid account agreement posting requirements in § 1005.19, other than the delayed requirement to submit prepaid account agreements to the Bureau pursuant to § 1005.19(b), as addressed in § 1005.19(f)(2). The Bureau is revising the date in the regulatory text of § 1005.19(f)(1) to reflect the new April 1, 2018 effective date. As discussed above, the Bureau is not delaying the October 1, 2018 date for submission of agreements to the Bureau.

The Bureau is delaying the October 1, 2017 effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule by six months, to April 1, 2018. Additionally, the Bureau is making conforming amendments to Regulation E §§ 1005.18(b)(2)(ix) and (h) and 1005.19(f)(1), and related commentary, as described above, which will also become effective April 1, 2018. This final rule with respect to the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, as required under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act.15

In developing the final rule, the Bureau has considered the potential benefits, costs, and impacts required by section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, section 1022(b)(2) calls for the Bureau to consider the potential benefits and costs of a regulation to consumers and covered persons, including the potential reduction of consumer access to consumer financial products or services, the impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and the impact on consumers in rural areas. In addition, 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2)(B) directs the Bureau to consult, before and during the rulemaking, with appropriate prudential regulators or other Federal agencies, regarding consistency with the objectives those agencies administer. The Bureau consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators, the Department of the Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by these agencies.

The Bureau previously considered the benefits, costs, and impacts of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's major provisions.16 The Bureau also previously considered the benefits, costs, and impacts of delaying the effective date in the Effective Date NPRM and solicited comment regarding that discussion.17 Where comments discuss the benefits or costs of delaying the effective date in the context of commenting on the merits of the provision, the Bureau has addressed those comments above. In this respect, the Bureau's section 1022(b)(2) discussion is not limited to the discussion in this part of the final rule.

In considering the relevant potential benefits, costs, and impacts, the Bureau has applied its knowledge and expertise concerning consumer financial markets and information received in response to its request for comment. Compared to the baseline established by the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule,18 the delay of the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule will generally benefit covered persons by facilitating initial compliance with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's requirements and delaying the start of ongoing compliance costs. Because covered persons retain the option of complying with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's original effective date, any delay in the effective date will not increase costs to providers.

Consumers may experience both benefits and costs from a delay in the effective date. If a delay in the effective date helps to preserve consumer access to covered products by minimizing industry disruption, both consumers and covered persons will benefit. However, the Bureau believes that delaying the effective date may also delay consumers' realization of benefits arising from the protections provided by the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, thereby potentially imposing a cost on consumers. One think tank commenter stated that, although prepaid providers often offer some protections voluntarily, providers may alter or remove protections so long as the rule is not in effect. Another think tank commenter stated that the primary cost of the delay would be that consumers would not have the information needed to make appropriate choices among card products. However, the commenter also stated that providers have made improvements with respect to disclosure recently and that it believed that the risk of consumers not having adequate information for decision-making during the intervening period was low.

The Bureau does not expect the final rule to have a differential impact on depository institutions and credit unions with $10 billion or less in total assets, as described in section 1026 of the Dodd-Frank Act, or on consumers in rural areas. The Bureau does not believe that the delay in the effective date will reduce consumer access to consumer financial products and services, and it may increase consumer access by decreasing the possibility of industry disruption arising from the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's implementation.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 19 as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 20 (RFA) requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small not-for-profit organizations.21 The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to the Small Business Act.22

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.23 The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small entity representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.24

The undersigned certified that the Effective Date NPRM would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and that an IRFA was therefore not required. The Bureau arrived at this conclusion because the Effective Date NPRM would delay the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule, which itself would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.25 Upon considering relevant comments, the Bureau's conclusion that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is unchanged. Therefore, a FRFA is not required.26

As discussed above, this final rule delays the effective date of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule to April 1, 2018. The six-month delay in the effective date will benefit small entities by providing additional flexibility with respect to the timing of the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's implementation. In addition to generally providing increased flexibility, the delay in the effective date will permit small entities to delay the commencement of any ongoing costs that result from complying with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule. Because small entities retain the option of complying with the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule's original effective date, the final rule's delay of the effective date will not increase costs incurred by small entities relative to the baseline established by the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule.

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),27 Federal agencies are generally required to seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for information collection requirements prior to implementation. The collections of information related to the Prepaid Accounts Final Rule have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA and assigned OMB Control Number 3170-0014 (Regulation E) and 3170-0015 (Regulation Z). Under the PRA, the Bureau may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The Bureau has determined that this final rule will not have any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements) on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA.

For the reasons set forth above, Regulation E, 12 CFR part 1005, as amended November 22, 2016, at 81 FR 83934, is further amended as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes NOTAM information in Class D extension airspace and amends the airport's geographic coordinates in associated Class D and Class E airspace for the above noted airports in Aspen, CO, and Pueblo, CO.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E airspace designated as an extension for Aspen Pitkin County/Sardy Field, Aspen, CO, and Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO, as published in FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part-time status. Also, after a review, the FAA found the geographic coordinates referenced in the airspace legal descriptions under Class D and Class E airspace areas for Aspen Pitkin County/Sardy Field, Aspen, CO, and Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO do not match the FAA's current aeronautical database. This rulemaking makes these updates.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the following NOTAM information from the regulatory text of Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Aspen Pitkin County/Sardy Field, Aspen, CO, and Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO: “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” Also, this action updates the geographic coordinates of these airports in the associated Class D and Class E airspace areas to match the FAA's current aeronautical database.

An editorial change is made in the airspace description for Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace, replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the current term Chart Supplement.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the legal descriptions of Class E airspace at Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport, Olympia, WA, to remove the NOTAM part-time status.

The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D area at Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport, Olympia, WA, as published in FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part-time status. The FAA also found the airport names for Grant County International Airport (formerly Grant County Airport) and Olympia Regional Airport (formerly Olympia Airport) have changed. Additionally, after a review, the FAA found the geographic coordinates listed in Grant County International Airport's Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions for Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake VOR/DME, and Fairchild AFB, do not match the FAA's aeronautical database.

Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement, and adds the city name Spokane to Fairchild AFB listed under the header for Grant County International Airport in Class E 700 foot airspace.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the following language from the legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area at Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport, Olympia, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.”

Also, this action updates the airport names for Grant County International Airport (formerly Grant County Airport) and Olympia Regional Airport (formerly Olympia Airport). Additionally, this action updates the geographic coordinates for Grant County International Airport, Moses Lake VOR/DME, and Fairchild AFB as listed in the Grant County International Airport Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions. Lastly, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions, and adds the city name Spokane to Fairchild AFB listed under the header for Grant County International Airport in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.

This action is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

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

On December 15, 2016, USTR published a final rule revising its existing regulations under the FOIA. See 81 FR 90715. Since that time, we became aware of four comments letters that we did not address in the final rulemaking. Two of the comments simply supported the FOIA's goal of government transparency. The third comment suggested that USTR periodically release its FOIA log, which we plan to do on a quarterly basis on the FOIA page of the USTR Web site at https://ustr.gov/about-us/reading-room/freedom-information-act-foia/frequent-requested-records. The fourth comment was from the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration (OGIS). OGIS asked us to refer to the services they offer as dispute resolution services rather than mediation services and to add a description of those services to our definition of the term “OGIS.” In response, we revised the definition of OGIS in Subpart A and updated the references to OGIS elsewhere in the rule. The remainder of the third and fourth comment letters largely concerned changes we already made in response to feedback from the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). Based on 2017 FOIA training provided by DoJ, we are adding a new paragraph (4) to section 2004.9(g), which concerns payment of advance fees, to clarify that we may collect fees a requester owes before we release responsive records.

On December 22, 2016, USTR published a proposed rule to update its implementing rule under the Privacy Act of 1974. See 81 FR 93857. The proposed rule describes how individuals can find out if a USTR system of records contains information about them and, if so, how to access or amend a record. The proposed rule would move the Privacy Act regulation from part 2005 into a new subpart C to part 2004. The 60-day comment period ended on January 23, 2017. We did not receive any comments and are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule without change.

USTR has considered the impact of the final rule and determined that it is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities because it is applicable only to USTR's internal operations and legal obligations. See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The final rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of the United States Trade Representative is amending chapter XX of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate structural inspections. The Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge across the Arthur Kill, mile 11.6, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 31 feet at mean high water and 35 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.702.

Under this temporary deviation, the Arthur Kill Railroad Bridge shall remain in the closed position as follows:

The waterway is transited by commercial traffic. The Coast Guard notified various companies of the commercial oil and barge vessels and they have no objections to the temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

The Canaveral Port Authority, with concurrence from the bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation have requested the Coast Guard consider changing the regulation of the SR401 Bridge across the Canaveral Barge Canal, Port Canaveral, FL to allow the bridge to not open to navigation from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays. The current operating regulation is under 33 CFR 117.273. The bridge logs (insert the time period of the reviewed bridge logs) indicate that, at most, approximately nine vessels may be affected by establishing this three hour bridge closure on Saturdays. The majority of the opening requests were either at the beginning or end of this closure period; therefore, by adjusting their transits slightly there should be a negligible overall effect. This deviation is effective from April 25, 2017 until October 23, 2017. The Coast Guard will continue to evaluate the impact to mariners navigating this area during the closure periods and has requested comments be submitted during the first 60 days of this deviation.

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

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

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, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this notice of deviation, and all public comments, are 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.

On May 10, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and Indian Creek, Miami, FL in the Federal Register (81 FR 28795). There we stated why we issued the NPRM and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to the East and West 79th Street Bridges. During the comment period that ended on June 11, 2016, we received 12 comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. The East and West 79th Street Bridges currently open upon request or signal, pursuant to 33 CFR 117.5, which results in frequent openings that restrict vehicle traffic during the day, especially during morning and afternoon rush hour traffic.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the bridge owner, and the City of North Bay Village requested a change to the current operating schedule for both bridges to allow for scheduled openings twice an hour during peak traffic times. Bridge logs indicate these bridges open up to four times an hour or more during peak travel times, which results in frequent vehicular traffic disruptions. This regulation would reduce vehicle traffic backups without unreasonably restricting vessel traffic by scheduling two openings per hour during peak traffic times, thereby balancing the needs of both modes of transportation.

Additionally, other bridges on this section of the Intracoastal Waterway and Miami Channel open two times per hour. The scheduled openings will align the 79th Street bridge openings with other bridges on the Intracoastal, namely, the Broad Causeway Bridge to the North (33 CFR 117.261(mm) and The Venetian Causeway Bridge to the South (33 CFR 117.261(nn), thereby allowing vessels to plan voyages during opening times and vehicles to schedule commutes around these openings.

The East 79th Street Bridge across Miami Beach Channel, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water (MHW) in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 60 feet between fenders.

The West 79th Street Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway mile 1084.6, Miami, FL has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at MHW in the closed to navigation position and a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders.

As noted above, the Coast Guard received 12 comments to the NPRM published on May 10, 2016. All 12 of the comments were in favor of changing the existing on-demand schedule to a twice an hour opening schedule from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. One comment requested that this bridge only open when vessels are waiting or when there is a request to open. This stipulation is covered by other regulations in 33 CFR part 117 and will only open at the designated times if requested by vessel operators.

This rule will allow the draw of the West 79th Street Bridges, across the AICW and Indian Creek at Miami, Florida to open twice an hour, once on the hour and once on the half-hour, Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. During nights and weekends and on Federal holidays, the Bridge would open on signal. This is a significant change from the on-demand schedule both bridges were previously operating on.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge during the scheduled opening times.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

This rule calls 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 rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined 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 rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

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

I. Background

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are set forth in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy.

In our proposed rule (PR), the EPA proposed to approve and take no action on some infrastructure elements for the 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications.1 In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications. We are also taking final action to approve new rules to Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality General Rules of Practice and Procedure submitted on May 31, 2016, to satisfy requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), state boards.

We received one comment letter from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Wyoming DEQ) in support of the EPA's proposed approval of infrastructure requirements of the CAA and the state boards requirement under CAA section 128.

For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we are taking no action on are reflected in Table 2. We are also approving new rules to Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality General Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter 1, General Provisions, section 16 submitted on May 31, 2016, to satisfy requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which pertains to the state boards requirement under section 128 (Table 1).

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

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wyoming DEQ General Rules of Practice and Procedure discussed in section III, Final Action of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 26, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA Section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

On September 27, 2016 (81 FR 66332), EPA (“we”) published a rule titled “Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Arkansas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan” (Arkansas Regional Haze FIP or FIP) addressing certain requirements of the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308 and the CAA regarding interference with other states' programs for visibility protection (interstate visibility transport) triggered by the issuance of the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.1

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a petition to the EPA dated November 22, 2016, seeking reconsideration and an administrative stay of specific portions of the final Arkansas Regional Haze FIP pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Similar petitions were submitted by Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy Mississippi Inc., and Entergy Power LLC (collectively Entergy) and the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC), owners of Flint Creek, White Bluff, and Independence facilities and the Energy Environmental Alliance of Arkansas (EEAA). Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, the Administrator shall commence a reconsideration proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgment, the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may stay the effectiveness of the rule for up to 90 days during such reconsideration.

In a letter dated April 14, 2017, EPA announced the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the compliance dates for the NOX emission limits for Flint Creek Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2. Further, based on statements by Entergy regarding the limited future operations of White Bluff, the EPA also determined to grant reconsideration of the SO2 emission limits for Units 1 and 2 at the facility. We granted reconsideration of these provisions of the FIP because the grounds for Petitioners' objections arose after the close of the comment period and are of central relevance to the outcome of the final rule pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA did not specifically request comment on the 18-month compliance dates for NOX controls in the FIP, and reconsideration will allow for additional public comment on these issues. In addition, new information clarified the intent of Entergy's comments regarding future operations at White Bluff and indicated that reconsideration of the SO2 best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limits based on a shorter remaining useful life is warranted. Finally, as we are reconsidering the compliance dates for the NOX emission limits at Independence, we are also reconsidering the compliance dates for the SO2 emission limits for Independence Units 1 and 2 to ensure that the schedule for compliance for these emission limits is coordinated. The EPA did not take action on the remaining issues in the petitions for reconsideration of the Arkansas FIP. A copy of this letter is included in the docket, Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0189.

We will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking that will provide ADEQ, Entergy, AECC, EEAA and the public an opportunity to comment on the issues identified above as well as any other matter we believe will benefit from additional comment.

The EPA hereby issues a 90 day stay from April 25, 2017 of the effectiveness of 40 CFR 52.173(c)(7) and (25) with regards to the compliance dates for the NOX emission limits for Flint Creek Unit 1, White Bluff Units 1 and 2, and Independence Units 1 and 2, and the compliance dates for the SO2 emission limits for White Bluff Units 1 and 2 and Independence Units 1 and 2. We are amending the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect this stay. This stay does not apply to any other provisions of the rule. If the EPA is unable to complete final action on reconsideration prior to the conclusion of this stay, we will consider granting a further stay of the rule. This stay, however, does not alter or extend the ultimate compliance timeframes set out in the final FIP. The EPA intends to propose a future rulemaking to extend the deadlines to account for the period of the stay or to account for another alternative proposal.

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0226 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 26, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0226, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51759) (FRL-9931-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F8343) by Gowan Company, LLC, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide benzobicyclon (3-[2-chloro-4-(methylsulfonyl)benzoyl]-4-(phenylthio)bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one), in or on rice, grain and rice, straw at 0.1 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0226), http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is not establishing a tolerance for rice, straw as requested. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.C.

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

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

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Benzobicyclon has low mammalian toxicity with no effects seen in mice, dogs, and female rats following oral exposure or in rabbits following dermal exposure. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. Parental effects in the reproduction toxicity study were only observed at the highest dose tested and consisted of increased incidence of hydropic degeneration (basophilic cells) in the pituitaries of male rats only, and was observed at an increased incidence for the F1 as compared to F0 generation. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative fetal or offspring susceptibility in the developmental toxicity and two-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats with no developmental, reproductive, or offspring effects observed. Benzobicyclon was categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It produces minimal but reversible eye irritation, but is not a dermal irritant or dermal sensitizer. Benzobicyclon is classified as “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of treatment-related tumors in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. There was no concern for mutagenicity.

Benzobicyclon rapidly hydrolyzes to generate the anticipated pesticidal active degradate, the triketone metabolite B (also referred to as 1315P-070). For metabolite B, a limited amount of toxicological data is available. An in vitro enzyme activity assay that was submitted indicates that metabolite B is an inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). In mammals, HPPD is a key enzyme in the catabolism of the amino acid tyrosine and inhibition of HPPD results in an increase of blood tyrosine concentrations (tyrosinemia). In laboratory animals, as a class, HPPD inhibitors produce ocular (opacities and keratitis), liver, kidney, and developmental (skeletal abnormalities) effects in rats. In a 90-day toxicity study in rats with metabolite B, ocular effects (neovascularization and opacity of the cornea) consistent with tyrosinemia were at a similar dose that elicited ocular effects for tembotrione, the most potent HPPD inhibitor currently registered. The study also demonstrated that metabolite B induces treatment-related effects at lower doses than those required to elicit effects for the parent, benzobicyclon. For metabolite B, the toxicological database does not contain any carcinogenicity studies. Some of the currently registered HPPD inhibitors have been shown to cause tumors; however, cancer risk estimates tend to be low for this class and the chronic risk assessment generally addresses this risk. A bacterial reverse-mutation assay with metabolite B to evaluate genotoxicity was found to be negative. Due to the incomplete database for metabolite B, studies from the tembotrione database were used for preliminary evaluation of risks from exposure to metabolite B, along with the appropriate database uncertainty factors to ensure the tembotrione database is protective for the proposed use pattern. Any expansion in the use of benzobicyclon would require additional data to further characterize the toxicological effects of metabolite B.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by benzobicyclon and metabolite B as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Benzobicyclon Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Action on Rice and the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Residues in/on Rice at page 36 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0226.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for benzobicyclon and metabolite B used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to benzobicyclon (parent), EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances. For metabolite B, there is no anticipated exposure in food; metabolite B is only a residue of concern in drinking water. EPA assessed dietary exposures from benzobicyclon in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for benzobicyclon; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As for residue levels of parent benzobicyclon in food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for rice. For metabolite B, there is no anticipated exposure in food; metabolite B is only a residue of concern in drinking water therefore chronic dietary exposure was considered for metabolite B separately.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that benzobicyclon does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for parent benzobicyclon so tolerance level residues and 100% CT were assumed resulting in risk estimates that were less than the LOC to EPA. For metabolite B, there is no anticipated exposure in food; metabolite B is only a residue of concern in drinking water. Because risk estimates for metabolite B in drinking water exceeded the EPA's LOC, a refined water exposure assessment was conducted which included a 10% CT assumption, which is described in detail in the following section.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used refined water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for benzobicyclon and metabolite B in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of benzobicyclon and metabolite B. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations based on the Pesticide in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM; v2.0) were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. Because no toxicological effect attributable to a single dose was observed for benzobicyclon, an acute exposure assessment was not done. Therefore, the acute dietary risk assessment was conducted for metabolite B only (the parent benzobicylon rapidly hydrolyzes to metabolite B) using the water concentration value of 24.8 ppb to assess the metabolite B contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.0031 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for benzobicyclon and 3.0 ppb for metabolite B. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded dietary cancer risk concerns due to long-term consumption of metabolite B residues are adequately addressed by the chronic exposure analysis using the cPAD. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Benzobicyclon is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

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

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. For benzobicyclon, there was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative fetal or offspring susceptibility in the developmental toxicity and two-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats with no developmental, reproductive, or offspring effects observed. For metabolite B, there are no available toxicity data to evaluate offspring sensitivity; however, toxicological data are available from other HPPD inhibitors, including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, two-generation reproduction studies in rats, and developmental neurotoxicity studies in rats. All of the selected endpoints for risk assessment were protective of developmental and offspring effects and tembotrione provided the most sensitive endpoint.

3. Conclusion. For metabolite B, the database in incomplete. Nevertheless, sufficient data are available to confirm that metabolite B is an HPPD inhibitor, which supports utilization of data from tembotrione, the most potent HPPD inhibitor. To account for the lack of data, the acute dietary assessment applies a 30X FQPA SF to account for extrapolation of a LOAEL to NOAEL and the database uncertainty factor for lack of studies. This safety factor is considered sufficient given the LOAEL in the developmental neurotoxicity study for tembotrione is considered conservative given the minimal changes seen at that dose. The chronic dietary assessment applies a 10X FQPA SF to account for the database uncertainty factor for lack of studies. These safety factors will adequately account for any potential prenatal and postnatal toxicity and address any residual uncertainty concerning the toxicity database. The Agency's assessment of exposure to metabolite B was conducted for drinking water only, as there is no anticipated exposure in food. The modeled drinking water concentrations for metabolite B are based on conservative modeled estimates.

For benzobicyclon, EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x SF. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for benzobicyclon is complete.

ii. There is no indication that benzobicyclon is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that benzobicyclon results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments for parent benzobicyclon were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. For metabolite B, there is no anticipated exposure in food; metabolite B is only a residue of concern in drinking water. Because risk estimates for metabolite B in drinking water exceeded the EPA's LOC, a refined water exposure assessment was conducted which includes a 10% CT assumption. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to benzobicyclon and metabolite B in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by benzobicyclon or metabolite B.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists. For metabolite B, the dietary exposure analyses included drinking water only and there are no uses that would result in residential exposure; therefore, an aggregate assessment was only necessary for the parent, benzobicyclon.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, benzobicyclon is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to benzobicyclon from food and water will result in risks of <1% of the cPAD for all populations. There are no residential uses for benzobicyclon.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, benzobicyclon is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed and is appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk); no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, benzobicyclon is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for benzobicyclon.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity, benzobicyclon is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. Dietary cancer risk concerns due to long-term consumption of metabolite B residues are adequately addressed by the chronic exposure analysis using the cPAD.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to benzobicyclon residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology (a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for benzobicyclon in or on the commodities associated with this rule.

The petitioner requested a tolerance of 0.01 ppm for rice, straw and rice, grain. However, based on OCSPP 860 Guidelines, Table 1 Feedstuffs, rice straw is not a regulated food commodity. Therefore, a tolerance for rice, straw is not needed.

The registrant has proposed use only in California, and has provided residue data for only California. The available residue data for the establishment of a tolerance level for residues of benzobicyclon support a value of 0.01 ppm in rice, grain.

Therefore, a tolerance associated with a regional registration in California is established for residues of benzobicyclon, in or on rice, grain at 0.01 ppm.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0123 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 26, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0123, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31581) (FRL-9946-02), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10891) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

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

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

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors referenced in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for Bacillus simplex strain BU288, including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with Bacillus simplex strain BU288 follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by Bacillus simplex strain BU288 as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

In an acute oral toxicity study of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in rats the acute oral Lethal Dose (LD)50 was estimated to be greater than 5,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg).

In an acute dermal toxicity study of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in rats, the LD50 was determined to be greater than 5,050 mg/kg.

In an acute inhalation toxicity study of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in rats, the acute inhalation Lethal Concentration (LC)50 is greater than 2.14 mg/Liter (L).

In an acute ocular irritation study of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in rats, minimal ocular irritation was observed during the 24-hr treatment period, with clearance by 48 hours.

A primary dermal irritation study was conducted for Bacillus simplex strain BU288 on rabbits. Very slight erythema was observed, with clearance by 24 hours.

In an acute intravenous toxicity and infectivity study with Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in rats the test substance Bacillus simplex strain BU288 was determined to be non-toxic at a dose of 1.0 x 109 CFU (colony forming units). There are no chronic toxicity studies available for Bacillus simplex strain BU288. Bacillus simplex and other closely related endospore-forming Bacillus species are ubiquitous in the environment. There are no reports of any potential human health or ecological hazards caused by Bacillus simplex strain BU288.

Based on the results of the Tier I testing, the Agency does not require any additional testing on potential subchronic or chronic toxicity. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals indicates that it is unlikely that the strain produces recognized toxins, enzymes, or virulence factors normally associated with mammalian invasiveness or toxicity. The results of in vivo toxicity testing identified no potential human health hazard following oral exposure to Bacillus simplex strain BU288. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by Bacillus simplex strain BU288. The absence of acute toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the overall benign nature of this strain. The acute studies also cover chronic endpoints because the pathogenicity/infectivity studies are of longer duration, typically at least 21-days. This longer duration allows for the expression of possible toxicities associated with the microbe as well as ensuring that the microbe is recognized and cleared by the immune system of the exposed rodent. The information provided by the identification of the microbe and its potential hazards, both toxin production and possible clinical history, along with results of the infectivity/pathogenicity studies provide a basis for stating that Bacillus simplex strain BU288 is not expected to result in any subchronic or chronic, including cancer, toxicity.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD) and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. [For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.]

Due to the lack of hazard associated with Bacillus simplex strain BU288 based on the available data, no points of departure were identified for assessing risk.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to Bacillus simplex strain BU288, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in food as follows:

Acute and chronic dietary assessments take into account exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. Because no adverse effects attributable to a single or repeat exposures to Bacillus simplex strain BU288 were seen in the toxicity databases, quantitative dietary risk assessments are not appropriate. Due to expected use of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest, it is reasonable to expect that there will be some exposure to these substances from their use in pesticide products.

2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and dapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). It is possible that Bacillus simplex strain BU288 may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that may result in residential exposures, although no residential uses are currently proposed. A residential exposure assessment was not conducted because no endpoint of concern following a single or repeat dose exposure was identified in the available studies.

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

Because Bacillus simplex strain BU288 does not have a toxic mode of action or a mechanism of toxicity, this provision does not apply.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

Because there are no threshold effects associated with Bacillus simplex strain BU288, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of Bacillus simplex strain BU288, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.

Based on the available data indicating a lack of toxicity associated with Bacillus simplex strain BU288, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to Bacillus simplex strain BU288 residues.

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

Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of Bacillus simplex strain BU288 when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

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

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

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

On November 3, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR part 423, the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category, under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361). The amendments addressed and contained limitations and standards on various wastestreams at steam electric power plants: Fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewater, flue gas desulfurization (“FGD”) wastewater, gasification wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category” (“Rule”). For further information on the Rule, see 80 FR 67838 (Nov. 3, 2015).

EPA received seven petitions for review of the Rule. The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order on December 8, 2015, consolidating all of the petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Petitioners have filed their briefs, and EPA's brief is currently due by May 4, 2017.

In a letter dated March 24, 2017, the Utility Water Act Group (“UWAG”) 1 submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Rule and requested that EPA suspend the Rule's approaching deadlines. In a letter dated April 5, 2017, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy also petitioned the EPA for reconsideration of the Rule. The petitions raise wide-ranging and sweeping objections to the Rule, some of which overlap with the claims in the ongoing litigation challenging the Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.2 The UWAG petition also points to new data, claiming that plants burning subbituminous and bituminous coal cannot comply with the Rule's limitations and standards for FGD wastewater through use of EPA's model technology. The UWAG petition says that a pilot study has been conducted at the Pleasant Prairie plant that supports petitioner's request, and that a final report on the pilot study “is likely to [be] publish[ed] . . . within the next few weeks.” Moreover, the petitions say that new data have been collected by American Electric Power that “illustrate[ ] that variability in wastewater management can also impact performance at bituminous plants such that additional technologies beyond EPA's model technology will be needed to achieve the limits.” EPA wishes to review these data.

In an April 12, 2017 letter to those who submitted the reconsideration petitions, the Administrator announced his decision to reconsider the Rule (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for the Rule). As explained in that letter, after considering the objections raised in the reconsideration petitions, the Administrator determined that it is appropriate and in the public interest to reconsider the Rule. Under Section 705 of the APA (“Administrative Procedure Act”), 5 U.S.C. 705, and when justice so requires, an Agency may postpone the effective date of action taken by it pending judicial review. The earliest compliance dates for the new, and more stringent, best available technology economically achievable effluent limitations and pretreatment standards is November 1, 2018, for each of the following wastestreams: Fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas desulfurization wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, and gasification wastewater. These dates have not yet passed, and they are within the meaning of the term “effective date” as that term is used in Section 705 of the APA. In light of the capital expenditures that facilities incurring costs under the Rule will need to undertake in order to meet the compliance deadlines for the new, more stringent limitations and standards in the Rule—which are as early as November 1, 2018, for direct dischargers and by November 1, 2018, for indirect dischargers—the Agency finds that justice requires it to postpone the compliance dates of the Rule that have not yet passed, pending judicial review. See 80 FR 67838, 67863-67868 (Nov. 3, 2015) (discussion of costs of the Rule). This will preserve the regulatory status quo with respect to wastestreams subject to the Rule's new, and more stringent, limitations and standards, while the litigation is pending and the reconsideration is underway. While EPA is not making any concession of error with respect to the rulemaking, the far-ranging issues contained in the reconsideration petitions warrant careful and considerate review of the Rule. EPA will also file a motion requesting the Fifth Circuit to hold the litigation challenging the Rule in abeyance while the Agency reconsiders the Rule, after which it will inform the Court of any portions of the Rule for which it seeks a remand so that it can conduct further rulemaking. Separately, EPA intends to conduct notice and comment rulemaking to stay the compliance deadlines for the new, more stringent limitations and standards in the Rule.

The EPA hereby issues a postponement of the compliance dates that have not yet passed contained in the following sections of the Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category under Section 705 of the APA pending judicial review: 40 CFR 423.11(t), 423.13(g)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(i), and (k)(1)(i), and 423.16(e), (f), (g), (h), and (i).