Federal Register Vol. 83, No.118,

Background

The National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as “the Plan”) is a cooperative Federal-State-industry mechanism for controlling certain poultry diseases. The Plan consists of a variety of programs intended to prevent and control poultry diseases. Participation in all Plan programs is voluntary, but breeding flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first qualify as “U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid Clean” as a condition for participating in the other Plan programs.

The Plan identifies States, independent flocks, hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants that meet certain disease control standards specified in the Plan's various programs. As a result, customers can buy poultry that has tested clean of certain diseases or that has been produced under disease-prevention conditions.

The regulations in 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 (referred to below as the regulations) contain the provisions of the Plan. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS or the Service) amends these provisions from time to time to incorporate new scientific information and technologies within the Plan.

On April 9, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 15082-15089, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0055) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by updating and clarifying several provisions, including those concerning NPIP participation, voting requirements, testing procedures, and standards.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 30 days ending May 9, 2018. We received two comments by that date. One individual was generally opposed to the rule and the poultry industry, but did not address any specific provisions of the proposed rule. The other commenter also did not address the provisions of the proposed rule, but instead addressed his comments to the statements made by the first commenter.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this rule is not significant, it is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

We have prepared an analysis regarding the economic effects of this final rule on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

We are amending the NPIP, its auxiliary provisions, and the indemnity regulations for the control of H5 and H7 low pathogenic avian influenza to align the regulations with international standards and make them more transparent to stakeholders and the general public. The changes in this final rule were voted on and approved by the voting delegates at the 2016 NPIP National Plan Conference.

The establishments that will be affected by the rule—principally entities engaged in poultry production and processing—are predominantly small by Small Business Administration standards. In those instances in which an addition to or modification of requirements could potentially result in a cost to certain entities, we do not expect the costs to be significant. NPIP membership is voluntary. The changes contained in this final rule were decided upon by the NPIP General Conference Committee and voting delegates during the 2016 NPIP Biennial Conference; the changes were recognized by the poultry industry as being in their interest.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 145, 146, and 147 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 Class D and Class E airspace at Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, Binghamton, NY, to support IFR operations at the airport.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 5750, February 9, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1061 to amend Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, Binghamton, NY (formerly Binghamton Regional Airport/Edwin A. Link Field).

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received requesting a graphic on the airspace proposal. The FAA has since posted a graphic to the docket.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004,and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, Binghamton, NY (formerly Binghamton Regional Airport/Edwin A. Link Field), due to the decommissioning of the Binghamton VORTAC, and cancellation of the VOR approaches. These changes enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

The Class D airspace area is amended to within a 4.4-mile radius (from a 4.3-mile radius) of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field.

The Class E surface area airspace is amended to within a 4.4-mile radius (increased from a 4.3-mile radius) of Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field. The Binghamton VORTAC is removed as it is being decommissioned. The SMITE LOM, and ILS Runway 34 Localizer navigation aids are no longer needed in the airspace redesign.

The Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area is removed as this airspace was only necessary for the cancelled approaches.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within a 7-mile radius (initially from a boundary line formed by the geographic coordinates) of the airport. The exclusionary language contained in the legal description is removed to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Also, an editorial change is made by adding the airport's geographic coordinates to the airspace designation.

The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted in the classes of airspace listed above to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and the airport name is updated to Greater Binghamton Airport/Edwin A. Link Field, formerly Binghamton Regional Airport/Edwin A. Link Field.

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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

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

I. Background and Statutory Authority

Congress enacted the CPSIA (Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016), as part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires CPSC to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Any standard CPSC adopts under this mandate must be substantially the same as the applicable voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if CPSC determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years,” and section 104(f)(2)(C) specifically identifies high chairs as a durable infant or toddler product.

On November 9, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), proposing to incorporate by reference the then-current voluntary standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-15, with more stringent requirements for rearward stability and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. 80 FR 69144; 81 FR 3354 (January 21, 2016) (correcting an error in the NPR). After the Commission issued the NPR, ASTM revised the voluntary standard several times, as discussed in section V of this preamble, and published the current version of the standard, ASTM F404-18, in March 2018.

In this final rule, the Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F404-18, with no modifications, as the mandatory safety standard for high chairs. As section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA requires, CPSC staff consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this standard, largely through the ASTM standard-development process. In addition, this final rule amends the list of NORs in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for high chairs.

ASTM F404-18 defines a “high chair” as “a free standing chair for a child up to 3 years of age which has a seating surface more than 15 in. above the floor and elevates the child normally for the purposes of feeding or eating.” The ASTM standard further specifies that a high chair may be sold with or without a tray, have adjustable heights, or recline for infants.1

High chairs are available in various designs, including four-legged A-frame styles, single-leg pedestals, Z-frame styles, and restaurant-style. Construction materials often include a plastic, wood, or metal frame, and a padded fabric seat. Some designs include a tray or mounted toy accessories, fold for storage and transport, or convert for continued use as a child grows. ASTM F404-18 requires high chairs to have a passive crotch restraint (i.e., two separate bounded openings for the occupant's legs) and a three-point restraint system; some designs also include a rigid front torso support or a five-point restraint system with shoulder harnesses.

CPSC staff has identified 59 domestic firms that currently supply high chairs to the U.S. market. Thirty-three of these firms manufacture high chairs and the remaining 26 firms are importers. Forty-three of the firms (26 manufacturers and 17 importers) are small, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) standards,2 and the remaining 16 (7 manufacturers and 9 importers) are large. Of the 59 domestic firms, 43 market their high chairs only to consumers, and 4 sell their high chairs to both consumers and restaurants. In addition, staff identified 9 foreign firms that supply high chairs to the U.S. market, including 8 manufacturers and 1 importer. Staff also identified numerous high chairs that are manufactured outside the United States and bought domestically through online sales.

At the time CPSC staff assessed the high chairs market, 13 of the 26 small domestic manufacturers, and 9 of the 17 small domestic importers, reported that they complied with the ASTM standard for high chairs.

CPSC receives data regarding product-related injuries from several sources. One source is the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), from which CPSC can estimate, based on a probability sample, the number of injuries that are treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (U.S. EDs) nationwide that are associated with specific consumer products. Other sources include reports from consumers and others through the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (which also includes some NEISS data) and reports from retailers and manufacturers through CPSC's Retailer Reporting System—CPSC refers to these sources collectively as Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System data (CPSRMS).

The preamble to the NPR summarized reports of high chair-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014, which CPSC received through CPSRMS sources. For the final rule, CPSC staff has updated this information to reflect newly reported high chair incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014, as well as new incidents that occurred between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017. In total, CPSC has received 1,842 reports of high-chair related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2017. These incidents involved 2 fatalities and 271 reported injuries.3 Of the incidents that reported the age of the child involved, the majority of incidents involved children between 7 and 18 months old.

The preamble to the NPR also summarized NEISS estimates for high chair-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. After the Commission issued the NPR, complete injury data became available for 2015 and 2016, and CPSC staff has updated this information for the final rule. Including this new data and extrapolating from the probability sample, CPSC staff estimates that there were 49,900 high chair-related injuries treated in U.S. EDs between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016. There were no deaths reported through NEISS for this period. There was no statistically significant increase or decrease in the estimated injuries from year-to-year between 2011 and 2016, and there was no statistically significant trend in the data over this period. Similarly to the CPSRMS data, of the incidents that reported the age of the child involved, most incidents involved children between 7 and 23 months old.

CPSC is aware of two fatal incidents that occurred between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2017. As the NPR stated, CPSC staff has been unable to collect detailed information about the fatal incident that was reported in 2014. CPSC received another report of a high chair-related fatality in 2016; this incident involved strangulation, but CPSC staff was unable to obtain additional details about the incident.

Of the total 271 nonfatal injuries reported to CPSC through CPSRMS sources that occurred between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2017, 1 involved a child who was admitted to the hospital with a skull fracture and retinal hemorrhage; 15 were treated in U.S. EDs for injuries including a puncture wound to the forehead, a broken collarbone, a compound fracture of the finger, lacerations, and contusions; and 1 reported a head injury and broken wrist, but did not indicate the treatment the child received. The remaining injuries primarily consisted of contusions, abrasions, and lacerations, resulting from falls or entrapment of limbs or extremities.

The injuries and treatments reported through NEISS for 2015 and 2016 were consistent with those for 2011 through 2014, described in the NPR. In most cases, the patient was treated in the U.S. ED and released (94 percent for 2011-2014, and 95 percent for 2015-2016). The most commonly injured body parts were the head (65 percent for 2011-2016) and face (17 percent for 2011-2016). The most common types of injuries were injuries to internal organs (48 percent for 2011-2014, and 51 percent for 2015-2016), contusions and abrasions (22 percent for 2011-2014, and 16 percent for 2015-2016), and lacerations (11 percent for 2011-2014, and 16 percent for 2015-2016).

CPSC staff also assessed NEISS data to determine the hazards associated with high chairs in restaurants. There were an estimated 1,600 injuries treated in U.S. EDs between 2011 and 2016, which were related to high chairs in restaurant settings. Most incidents involved users falling from the high chair. Of the reports that indicated the cause of the fall, it commonly occurred when a child attempted to climb into or out of the high chair; the high chair tipped over; or consumers did not use restraints or the restraints failed or were defeated.

The hazards reported in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns staff identified in the incidents presented in the NPR. The hazard in nearly all reported incidents, both those discussed in the NPR (96 percent) and in the new incidents (95 percent), involved issues with specific components of the high chair, including the frame, seat, restraint system, armrest, tray, toy accessories, and footrest. Design, stability, and other general product issues accounted for 4 percent of incidents discussed in the NPR and 3 percent of the new incidents.

Most of the NEISS incidents reported for 2015 and 2016 involved falls from high chairs, often when a child attempted to climb into or out of the high chair; when the chair tipped over when a child pushed back or rocked while in the high chair; or when a component of the high chair (e.g., restraint, tray, lock) failed or disengaged.

In this final rule, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F404-18. The Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F404-18 because it includes provisions that are the same as, or consistent with, the requirements proposed in the NPR, and CPSC staff believes that the standard addresses the hazards associated with high chairs.

ASTM F404, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for High Chairs, is the voluntary standard that addresses the hazard patterns associated with the use of high chairs. ASTM first approved and published the standard in 1975, as ASTM F404-75. ASTM has revised the standard numerous times since then. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, with modifications.

After the Commission issued the NPR, ASTM revised ASTM F404 five times. CPSC staff worked with representatives of manufacturers, consumer groups, retailers, and other industry members and groups on the ASTM subcommittee on high chairs to develop requirements to address the hazards associated with high chairs, including issues and requirements raised in the NPR, concerns raised by members of the ASTM subcommittee, and comments on the NPR. CPSC staff also participated in the ASTM Ad Hoc Committee on Standardized Wording for Juvenile Product Standards (Ad Hoc TG) to finalize recommendations for warning labels, entitled, “Recommended Language Approved by Ad Hoc Task Group, Revision C” (November 10, 2017), to provide consistent and effective warnings for juvenile product standards. The most recent version of the standard, ASTM F404-18, reflects the work of these groups. ASTM approved ASTM F404-18 on February 15, 2018, and published it in March 2018.

In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F404-15, which addressed many of the hazard patterns associated with high chairs, with modifications to three areas of the standard. The Commission proposed more stringent requirements than those in ASTM F404-15 for rearward stability, warnings on labels, and instructional literature. Specifically, the Commission proposed:

• More stringent rearward stability requirements, including test procedures, a formula for determining a “rearward stability index” (RSI), and a requirement that high chairs have an RSI of at least 50;

• more stringent warning content, format, and placement requirements than those in ASTM F404-15; and

• warning content in instructional literature that aligned with the modified warning labels, as well as formatting requirements for warnings in instructions.

The requirements in ASTM F404-18 are largely the same as those the Commission proposed in the NPR. ASTM F404-18 includes the same scope, definitions, general requirements (e.g., threaded fasteners; latching and locking mechanisms), performance requirements, and test methods that the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference from ASTM F404-15. In addition, ASTM F404-18 includes modifications to reflect the more stringent requirements the Commission proposed in the NPR, to address comments filed in response to the NPR, and to provide additional detail and clarity. The following discussion compares the areas in which the NPR and ASTM F404-18 differ, and describes CPSC staff's assessment of the ASTM F404-18 provisions.

In the NPR, the Commission proposed to require the forward and sideways stability requirements in ASTM F404-15 and more stringent rearward stability requirements, consisting of a test method and formula for determining the RSI for a high chair, and a minimum RSI of 50. ASTM F404-18 includes these requirements, with some additional details and minor changes for clarification. First, ASTM F404-18 includes additional details about how to perform stability testing (e.g., using a low stretch cord), and, in particular, how to perform stability testing when product features vary (e.g., reclining seat backs; high chairs without trays; when test weights cannot be centered on the seat). Second, ASTM F404-18 includes minor wording changes to provide clarity, such as describing the point at which a high chair becomes unstable (for purposes of calculating the RSI) as the point where it “begins to tip over,” instead of the point at which it is on “the verge of tipping over.” This wording maintains the meaning in the NPR, but adds clarity, in response to comments requesting clarification.

CPSC staff in the Division of Mechanical and Combustion Engineering has reviewed the stability requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that they adequately address the stability issues associated with high chairs. The stability requirements in ASTM F404-18 are largely the same as the more-stringent stability requirements the Commission proposed in the NPR (maintaining the same test method, formula, and RSI limit), which staff believes are effective, and the minor modifications added to ASTM F404-18 add clarity and detail.

In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent warning label content, format, and placement requirements than those in ASTM F404-15. ASTM F404-18 also includes more stringent warning label requirements than those in ASTM F404-15, but the requirements are not identical to those in the NPR.

Content. The content of the warnings in ASTM F404-18 are nearly identical to those the Commission proposed in the NPR, with minor changes to some wording. For example, ASTM F404-18 requires the phrase “Fall Hazard” to appear before the warning statement. In addition, one of the NPR warnings stated: “children have suffered skull fractures after falling from high chairs”; in contrast, ASTM F404-18 states: “children have suffered severe head injuries including skull fractures when falling from high chairs.” ASTM F404-18 also includes some changes to how warnings are phrased, but conveys the same information as the wording in the NPR (e.g., “falls can happen quickly,” versus “falls can happen suddenly”).

CPSC staff in the Division of Human Factors (HF) has reviewed the warning label content requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that the warning content is largely consistent with that in the NPR, addressing the same general information, and staff concludes that the changes do not undermine the effectiveness of the warnings. Staff believes that warning of severe head injuries, coupled with citing skull fractures as one possible example of such an injury, is an effective way to warn users about the potential consequences of the fall hazard. Moreover, staff believes that this warning avoids the impression that the NPR language may have given, which is that skull fractures are the only type of potential injury. In addition, staff believes that the phrase, “Fall Hazard,” is unnecessary, but is not problematic.

Format. The NPR and ASTM F404-18 include the same requirements for size and organization of warning labels, but handle some other formatting requirements differently. After the Commission issued the NPR, the Ad Hoc TG finalized its recommendations for warning labels, which address warning format. The goal of the Ad Hoc TG recommendations is to provide consistent and effective warnings for juvenile products by addressing warning format issues that impact consumer attention, readability, hazard perception, and avoidance behaviors.

The Ad Hoc TG recommendations are based largely on the requirements of ANSI Z535.4, American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels (ANSI Z535.4), with additional content to account for the wide range and unique nature of durable nursery products, the concerns of industry representatives, and CPSC staff's recommendations. ANSI Z535.4 addresses format topics, such as safety alert symbols, signal words, panel format, color, and letter style; and additional Ad Hoc TG recommendations address text size, alignment, and organization.

The warning format requirements in ASTM F404-18 align with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations. The warning format requirements in the NPR differ from ASTM F404-18 in the following ways:

• Where the NPR proposed a specific typeface and required certain words to be in bold, ASTM F404-18 only recommends avoiding certain kinds of typeface (e.g., narrow); and

• where the NPR detailed specific requirements for colors, borders, typeface, and referred to ANSI Z535.4 for optional additional guidance, ASTM F404-18 simply requires conformance to ANSI Z535.4, which includes provisions on these topics.

HF staff has reviewed the warning label format requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that they are appropriate. The warning format requirements in ASTM F404-18 are largely consistent with the provisions in the NPR, because the NPR discussed the same format topics and referenced ANSI Z535.4; and the requirements resolve many of the comments filed in response to the NPR by clarifying conflicting or unclear provisions. Because the requirements align with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, staff believes they are effective.

Placement. The NPR proposed requiring all warning content to appear on one label that was visible both when putting a child in the high chair and once a child was in the high chair. ASTM F404-18 allows the warning content to appear on two labels. One label, addressing fall injuries and restraints, must be visible when putting a child in the high chair; the second label, addressing attendance, must be visible when a child is in the high chair.

HF staff has reviewed the warning label placement requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes that they are sufficient. In response to the NPR, commenters identified challenges the placement requirements in the NPR posed. For example, commenters noted that it would be difficult for high chair models with design or size limitations to meet the placement requirements proposed in the NPR because the proposal required a single label with more content that was visible during all stages of use. After considering these comments, staff agrees that the two warning labels ASTM F404-18 requires are justified. Staff believes that the placement requirements in ASTM F404-18 are adequate because they require each of the warnings to be visible at the time the information is most relevant.

First, ASTM F404-18 requires the fall-related warnings to be visible to caregivers when putting a child into the high chair. Warning caregivers of the hazard, potential injuries, and how to avoid the hazard is most relevant when they are placing the child into the high chair, because it informs them of the risks from the outset of use, and may motivate them to use restraints appropriately. Thus, it is likely more important to include these warnings on a label that is visible when placing a child in the high chair, than on a label that is visible during use. Second, ASTM F404-18 requires the warning to “stay near and watch child during use” to be visible when the child is in the high chair. Reminding caregivers to supervise children is most relevant when a child is already in the high chair, and the caregiver may become distracted or leave the child unattended. Accordingly, it is likely more important to include this warning on a label that is visible during use, rather than on a label that is visible when initially putting a child into the high chair. Thus, although staff believes it would be ideal to convey all warning information in a place that is visible during all stages of use, given design and space limitations, the placement requirements in ASTM F404-18 are appropriate.

In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent content and design requirements for warnings in instructional literature than those in ASTM F404-15. ASTM F404-18 also requires more stringent instructional literature requirements than ASTM F404-15, although the design requirements are not identical to those in the NPR.

The warning content requirements for instructional literature in ASTM F404-18 are consistent with those in the NPR. Both the NPR and ASTM F404-18 required instructional literature to contain the warning statements specified for on-product warning labels, by referencing the applicable sections regarding on-product warning labels (i.e., Section 8).

With respect to the design of warnings in instructional literature, the NPR proposed highly contrasting colors and referenced ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Collateral Materials (ANSI Z535.6), for optional design guidance. Like the NPR, ASTM F404-18 references ANSI Z535.6, but also includes more-detailed requirements regarding text size, alignment, and organization, and requires conformance with ANSI Z535.4 (with some exceptions for areas that are not critical for instructions). These requirements eliminate some areas of confusion commenters noted regarding the requirements proposed in the NPR.

HF staff has reviewed the instructional literature requirements in ASTM F404-18 and believes they are effective. The requirements in ASTM F404-18 are consistent with the types of formatting and content provisions proposed in the NPR and are based on the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, which staff believes are effective and resolve areas of confusion raised in the NPR comments.

The NPR discussed whether a mandatory standard should apply to restaurant-style high chairs (i.e., high chairs intended for use in restaurants, also known as “food service high chairs”) or whether the hazards, environment, and product features useful in a restaurant, as well as compliance costs, justified fully or partially exempting restaurant-style high chairs from the final rule or creating different requirements for them. The ASTM standard does not distinguish restaurant-style high chairs from those intended for home use, and applies to all high chairs.

CPSC has determined that restaurant-style high chairs should remain within the scope of the final rule, consistent with ASTM F404-18. NEISS data indicate that an estimated 1,600 incidents related to high chairs occurred in restaurants and were treated in U.S. EDs between 2011 and 2016. The hazard patterns in these incidents appear similar to those in homes, primarily involving children falling from high chairs due to issues with restraints, tip overs, or when a child was climbing into or out of the high chair. In addition, CPSC staff identified four firms that sell restaurant-style high chairs to both restaurants and consumers. Finally, section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to adopt a mandatory standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard. Because the voluntary standard for high chairs applies to all high chairs, including those used in restaurants, excluding them from the final rule or applying less stringent requirements for restaurant-style high chairs would be inconsistent with the CPSIA.

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require the preamble to a final rule to summarize the material and discuss the ways in which the material the agency incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested persons, and how interested parties can obtain the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with the OFR regulations, this section summarizes ASTM F404-18, and describes how interested parties may obtain a copy of the standard.

ASTM F404-18 contains requirements concerning:

• Threaded fasteners;

• sharp edges and points;

• small parts;

• wood parts;

• latching or locking mechanisms;

• permanency of labels;

• openings;

• lead in paint;

• forward, sideways, and rearward stability;

• exposed coil springs;

• scissoring, shearing, and pinching;

• restraint systems;

• structural integrity;

• tray latch release mechanisms;

• side containment;

• protrusions;

• protective components;

• tray or front torso support;

• static loads on the seat, step, footrest, and tray;

• bounded openings;

• warnings and labels; and

• instructional literature.

The standard also includes test methods to assess conformance with these requirements.

Interested parties may obtain a copy of ASTM F404-18 from ASTM, through its website (http://www.astm.org), or by mail from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Alternatively, interested parties may inspect a copy of the standard at CPSC's Office of the Secretary.

CPSC received 16 comments in response to the NPR. The comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2015-0031, at: www.regulations.gov. A summary of the comments, grouped by topic, and CPSC staff's responses are below.

Comment: CPSC received a comment from four consumer advocate groups that supported the proposed 6-month effective date. Another commenter, representing juvenile product manufacturers, requested a 1-year effective date, stating that additional time would be necessary to change products to meet the new requirements, particularly for warning labels and instructional literature.

Response: The warning label and instructional literature requirements in the final rule should require less-burdensome product changes than the proposed rule, particularly because the final rule allows for two separate labels with distinct placement requirements. This reduces the need for a longer effective date. However, some firms will need to modify their products to meet the final rule. For 49 percent of small firms, CPSC staff cannot rule out the possibility that the final rule will have a significant economic impact. In addition, staff believes that some firms may not be aware of the ASTM standard or that CPSC is issuing a rule on high chairs. A longer effective date would reduce this impact. Accordingly, the Commission is providing a longer effective date for the final rule than proposed. The rule will take effect 12 months after publication of this final rule.

Comment: One commenter stated that the ASTM requirement that passive crotch restraints must be permanently attached to a high chair or tray before shipment (section 6.9.1.5) should not apply to high chairs for which consumers assemble every component, with instructions.

Response: CPSC believes that this exception would be inappropriate for two reasons. First, CPSC staff believes that it is important for passive restraints to be attached permanently to a high chair or tray before shipment, because it helps ensure that users do not intentionally or inadvertently assemble or use a high chair without the passive restraint. This requirement is intended to reduce the likelihood of death from positional asphyxia. Second, section 104 of the CPSIA does not permit CPSC to create such an exception. Section 104 requires the Commission to adopt a mandatory standard for high chairs that is “substantially the same as” or “more stringent than” the voluntary standard. Because ASTM F404 requires permanent attachment of passive restraints (and has since 2015), creating an exception to this requirement would be less stringent than the voluntary standard.

Two commenters raised issues regarding the clarity and repeatability of the proposed rearward stability requirements.

Comment: One commenter pointed out that § 1231.2(b) of the proposed rule, which the Commission proposed to replace section 6.5 of ASTM F404-15, would have required compliance with sections 7.7.2.4 to 7.7.2.4.6 of ASTM F404, instead of all of section 7.7.

Response: Some section references were mistakenly omitted from the ASTM standard when ASTM revised the stability requirements in the standard. Correspondingly, the NPR included incomplete section references. ASTM corrected this error in later revisions to ASTM F404. Section 6.5 of ASTM F404-18, which the Commission incorporates by reference in this final rule, now properly references all of section 7.7.

Comment: One commenter stated that the phrase “verge of tipping over,” used to determine the RSI, is subjective, and will cause variation in measurements of tipping distance.

Response: ASTM revised this language in ASTM F404-18 to add clarity, and the provision now states: “the point that [the high chair] becomes unstable and begins to tip over,” which CPSC staff believes addresses this issue.

Comment: One commenter stated that the rearward tipping force load application “must be reached in at least 5 seconds” and suggested that the load force varies, depending on how quickly or slowly a particular tester applies this load, leading to variation in the RSI of about 4 points.

Response: ASTM F404-15, which was in effect at the time the Commission issued the NPR, stated: “Gradually apply the force over a period of 5 s.” In the NPR, the Commission proposed to modify this language to state: “Gradually increase the horizontal force over a period of at least 5 seconds.” ASTM F404-18 includes the language proposed in the NPR, which makes it clear that 5 seconds is a minimum, not a maximum, timeframe, and to emphasize that testers should apply the load slowly and steadily. As in other ASTM standards that include stability requirements, the 5-second reference is not meant to be an upper time limit during which testers must hurriedly apply force. If testers apply force sufficiently slowly, negligible dynamic force should factor into the equation and maximum tip-over force readings will be consistent.

Comment: One commenter stated that the wording, diagram, and calculation formula for rearward stability in the NPR are confusing and flawed, including confusing identifiers, crossed out words, and multiple definitions of “F.”

Response: ASTM revised the diagram in ASTM F404-18 to resolve these issues, removing crossed out words and defining the forces more clearly, by designating F1 and F2 as unique and clearly identified forces. Likewise, the RSI calculation in ASTM F404-18 includes the maximum F2 force, rather than the original, ambiguous force F. The new diagram is in ASTM F404-18 Figure 10, and the RSI formula is in section 7.7.2.6(4).

CPSC received five comments that discussed issues related to warning content. One commenter supported the Commission's proposed warning content, particularly the statement: “Falls can happen quickly if child is not restrained properly.” Another commenter supported the warning content in ASTM F404-15, rather than the NPR, but did not provide specific reasons for preferring the ASTM content. The remaining three comments discussed the following issues.

Comment: Two commenters were concerned about the increased length of the proposed warning, and one of the two was concerned with the proposed requirement that all warning information appear on a single label.

Response: These comments address two related issues—spreading warning content across multiple labels, and the length of warning content. With respect to the first issue, the NPR proposed to require all warnings to appear on a single label. The NPR and staff's supporting briefing package explained the reasons for that proposed requirement. As an example, in ASTM F404-15, the warning: “Never leave child unattended,” did not appear on the same label that described the fall hazard and potential consequences. However, never leaving a child unattended is one behavior consumers can use to avoid the fall hazard. Consequently, staff believed that the warning would be more effective if the mitigating behavior appeared on the same label as the information about the hazard and consequences. Unlike the NPR, ASTM F404-18 spreads the required warnings across two labels. As section V of this notice discusses, HF staff believes that spreading the warnings across two labels is acceptable.

With respect to the length of warning content, the warnings the Commission proposed in the NPR were longer than the warnings in ASTM F404-15. ASTM F404-18 includes revised warning content that is consistent with the NPR. CPSC staff worked with ASTM to ensure that ASTM F404-18 includes the essentials of the warnings the NPR proposed, but also addresses comments submitted in response to the NPR, and ASTM subcommittee members' concerns. This final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F404-18, without modifications. CPSC staff maintains that the additional warning content proposed in the NPR, and the analogous content in ASTM F404-18, is appropriate, because it addresses deficiencies in the warning content in ASTM F404-15. For example, the description of injuries that could be sustained from high chair incidents in ASTM F404-15 (i.e., “serious injury or death”) was vague. Research suggests that more explicit descriptions improve consumer compliance with recommended hazard-avoidance behaviors. Similarly, the warning in ASTM F404-15 did not describe the speed with which incidents can occur. This information is important because consumers have reported that they may not use restraints on high chairs because they think they can notice and stop emerging incidents in time. In addition, the warning did not state that a tray is not intended to restrain a child. This information is necessary because consumers have reported that they consider the tray, functionally, to be part of a high chair's restraint system, and some incidents suggest that consumers rely on the tray alone to restrain the child. Finally, the warning lacked a statement about properly adjusting the restraint system. There have been fall-related incidents where children were restrained, but the restraint system was loose or otherwise allowed the child to wriggle out.

Staff acknowledges that consumers are more likely to fully read short warnings than longer ones. However, brevity is only one factor to consider when designing a warning. A short warning is unlikely to be effective if it does not convey all key information about the hazards, and carefully selected additional content can enhance consumer compliance with warnings. In addition, staff does not consider the warnings in the NPR and ASTM F404-18 to be unusually long, or so long that they would dissuade consumers from reading the full content.

Comment: Two commenters stated that referring to serious injuries broadly, such as “serious injury or death,” is likely to be more effective than a specific and limited reference to “skull fractures.” One of these commenters stated that referring to skull fractures alone, may cause caregivers to ignore other, more frequent risks.

Response: ASTM F404-18 includes broader language (i.e., “severe head injuries”) than the Commission proposed in the NPR, in addition to the specific injuries (i.e., “skull fractures”) referenced in the NPR warning. Staff believes that including the broader language avoids the perception that skull fractures are the only type of serious injuries that occur. Staff believes that coupling the broad and specific injuries, rather than stating only the broader injury, is important to improve consumer compliance with the recommended hazard-avoidance behavior because research shows that more explicit or detailed information in a warning increases warning effectiveness, and vividness increases the salience of the message, which triggers the reader's motivation to act.

Comment: Two commenters noted that CPSC should not require the warning statement about trays (i.e., “Tray is not designed to hold child in chair”) for high chairs that do not have trays.

Response: CPSC agrees with this comment. ASTM F404-18 requires the same warning regarding trays as the Commission proposed in the NPR, but only requires this warning for high chairs that are designed to be used with a tray.

CPSC received several comments regarding the warning format requirements proposed in the NPR. A summary of the comments, and staff's responses, are below. First, however, is a general discussion of the changes to warning format requirements in the ASTM standard since the NPR. These changes are the result of the Ad Hoc TG's efforts and address comments CPSC received about warning format.

After the Commission issued the NPR, there were several developments related to warning format and design. In short, the Ad Hoc TG finalized and published recommendations for warning format, and ASTM revised the warning requirements in ASTM F404-18 to be consistent with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations.

The Ad Hoc TG was formed to develop standardized language across ASTM juvenile products standards, and was developing recommendations for warning format when the Commission issued the high chairs NPR. HF staff serves on the Ad Hoc TG, as well as the ANSI Z535 Committee on Safety Signs and Colors. In this capacity, staff collaborated with the other members of the Ad Hoc TG to develop the finalized recommendations for warning format.

With the goal of providing consistent formatting requirements for all juvenile-product standards and addressing warning format issues that impact the effectiveness of warnings, the Ad Hoc TG recommendations require warning content to be “easy to read and understand”; not contradict information elsewhere on the product; be in English (at a minimum); and meet various formatting requirements. The formatting requirements include minimum text size; text alignment; bullet, lists, outline, and paragraph forms for hazard-avoidance statements; and compliance with sections of ASNI Z535.4—specifically, sections 6.1 to 6.4 (which include requirements for safety alert symbols, signal words, and warning panel format, arrangement, and shape), 7.2 to 7.6.3 (which include color requirements), and 8.1 (which addresses letter style). The Ad Hoc TG recommendations also include recommended requirements for general labeling issues, such as labeling permanency, and content related to manufacturer contact information and date of manufacture.

The Ad Hoc TG recommendations and the resulting changes to ASTM F404-18 address many of the comments filed in response to the proposed warning format requirements in the NPR. Below are the comments CPSC received on that topic, and staff's responses.

Comment: Four commenters objected to the NPR proposal to require “key words” to appear in boldface, because the phrase is open to interpretation. One commenter also noted that because the NPR proposed to require warnings to “address” the specified warning content, rather than state it exactly as phrased in the standard, a rule could not designate specific words as “key words.”

Response: The commenter is correct that the standard does not define “key words” and requires warning statements to “address” the specified warning content, rather than state it exactly as it is worded in the standard. ASTM F404-18 does not include this proposed requirement.

Comment: Three commenters stated that there is no clear definition or understanding of “non-condensed” sans serif typeface, and this provision may be misinterpreted or confusing. One commenter also stated that some compressed and narrow typefaces are easy to read, and therefore, the rule should not preclude them.

Response: There is no formal definition of “non-condensed typeface,” and some condensed typefaces could be adequately legible. ASTM F404-18 does not include the proposed provision or prohibit the use of condensed type, but it does include a note that recommends avoiding typefaces with “large height-to-width ratios, which are commonly identified as `condensed,' `compressed,' `narrow,' or similar.”

Comment: Two commenters stated that the proposed note, referring readers to ANSI Z535.4 for “optional additional guidance,” may not be clear to manufacturers or test laboratories.

Response: ASTM F404-18 does not include the proposed note; instead, the standard includes specific warning format requirements and requires conformance to the 2011 version of ANSI Z535.4.

Comment: Two commenters stated that the reference to “instructions” in section 8.4.2 of the NPR is inappropriate because section 8 of the standard addresses warnings, not instructions (which are addressed in section 9).

Response: ASTM F404-18 corrects this inconsistency, referring to “marking or labeling” rather than “labels or written instructions.”

Comment: One commenter stated that the NPR proposal that warning message text must be black on a white background conflicts with the NPR proposal that warning statements be in “highly contrasting colors.”

Response: ASTM F404-18 does not include the proposed requirements as they were stated in the NPR. Instead, ASTM F404-18 requires conformance with ANSI Z535.4-2011, section 7.3, which requires message panel text to be black lettering on a white background or white lettering on a black background. These color requirements apply unless special circumstances preclude the use of these colors (section 7.6.3), in which case the warning text must contrast with the background.

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed warning requirements should apply only to the warnings that the standard requires, and not to additional warnings that are not requirements.

Response: Since the Commission issued the NPR, CPSC staff has continued to work with the Ad Hoc TG to develop final warning format recommendations, which ASTM F404-18 includes. Consistent with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, ASTM F404-18 requires all warnings to meet the format requirements in the standard. CPSC staff believes that all warning statements should meet these format requirements because they are important to capture consumer attention, improve readability, and increase hazard perception and avoidance behavior.

Comment: Two commenters recommended that CPSC wait to issue a mandatory standard for warnings until the Ad Hoc TG completes its work on general warning format requirements.

Response: The Ad Hoc TG has completed and published its recommendations, and ASTM F404-18 includes updates to reflect those recommendations.

Comment: Four commenters discussed warning placement. One commenter supported the proposed placement requirements (i.e., that the warning be visible while placing the child in the high chair and while the child is seated in the high chair) and the remaining three commenters did not. These three commenters raised general concerns about limited space on some high chairs, especially models with low seatbacks. The commenters stated that it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to meet the proposed placement requirements on those models, suggesting that manufacturers would have to redesign or discontinue the models. The commenters emphasized the need for flexibility. One commenter stated that there is no clear evidence that a label that is visible when a child is in a high chair, or a secondary label if the seatback is not high enough, will actually change caregivers' behaviors.

Response: Consistent with these comments, ASTM F404-18 includes modified warning placement requirements, which provide greater flexibility than the requirements proposed in the NPR. ASTM F404-18 requires two labels, each with respective placement requirements, which CPSC staff believes are sufficient. ASTM F404-18 requires that fall-related warnings be visible to a caregiver only when placing a child into the high chair. CPSC staff believes this is sufficient because this allows caregivers to see the warning about the hazard, its consequences, and the key actions to avoid the hazard, immediately before this information is relevant. Although the warning may not be visible once a child is in the high chair, the warning likely would be visible when the high chair is not in use, exposing consumers to the message at other times, such as when cleaning or moving the high chair.

ASTM F404-18 also requires a second warning statement (which may appear on a separate label), instructing caregivers to “stay near and watch child during use.” This warning must be “conspicuous” (i.e., visible to a person standing near the high chair when a child is in the high chair, but not necessarily visible from all positions). Commenters and ASTM high chair subcommittee members have pointed out that this warning statement also applies to hazards other than falls, such as choking hazards. CPSC staff agrees and believes that this warning, in a conspicuous location, separate from the fall-related warning, will serve as a general reminder to remain with a child who is in the high chair. Because the warning statement must be visible when the child is still seated in the high chair, caregivers will be more likely to see the warning when they are about to leave the seated child than if the warning statement were included as part of the warning that must be visible while placing the child into the high chair.

Comment: Three commenters stated that there is no justification to revise the ASTM F404-15 warning requirements. Two of these commenters noted that ASTM F404-15 had only recently been adopted, so there is no evidence that the warning requirements are ineffective.

Response: In accordance with the statutory language in the CPSIA, when assessing an ASTM standard for rulemaking under section 104, CPSC staff considers whether more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Accordingly, for this rulemaking, staff considered whether more stringent warning requirements for high chairs would further reduce the risk of injury, were appropriate, and were supported by scientific and technical literature. Based on staff's assessment, the NPR proposed more stringent warning requirements, many of which ASTM F404-18 includes.

Comment: One commenter stated that large warning labels would be sufficient to address the hazards associated with high chairs.

Response: Staff does not believe that warnings, alone, are sufficient to address the demonstrated hazards. Literature on safety and warnings consistently identifies a hierarchy of approaches to controlling hazards. In this hierarchy, warnings are less effective at eliminating or reducing exposure to hazards than designing the hazard out of a product or guarding consumers from the hazard. Warnings are less effective than these other approaches because they do not prevent consumer exposure to the hazard. Rather, warnings rely on educating consumers about the hazard and then persuading them to alter their behavior to avoid the hazard. For warnings to be effective, consumers need to behave consistently, which may not be the case when situational factors, such as fatigue, stress, or social influences, impact precautionary behavior. As a result, warnings should supplement, rather than replace, design standards or provisions that attempt to guard consumers from a hazard, unless those alternatives are not possible.

Comment: One commenter recommended adding pictograms to the warning provisions in the standard to convey the hazard effectively and reduce language barriers.

Response: Well-designed graphics may be useful to convey the fall hazard associated with high chairs. However, designing effective graphics can be difficult. Some seemingly obvious graphics can be misinterpreted. Consequently, CPSC staff believes that it is appropriate to permit supporting graphics in high chair warnings, but not require them.

Comment: One commenter noted that the NPR included warning requirements for high chairs that have seats that are also used as seats in strollers, but does not address high chairs with seats that also function as booster seats.

Response: A product with a seat that functions as a seat for a high chair and a booster seat must meet the requirements in both the high chair and booster seat standards. CPSC staff believes that manufacturers are capable of meeting the requirements of both standards, and therefore, staff does not believe that revisions to the requirements are necessary.

Comment: Three commenters expressed confusion about the proposed color requirements for instructional literature in the NPR. Two commenters stated that the requirements were contradictory, and another commenter stated that the proposed color requirements take away the flexibility to use other colors.

Response: CPSC agrees that the proposed color requirements for instructional literature may be unclear and that manufacturers should have some flexibility in choosing colors for instructional literature. After the Commission issued the NPR, the Ad Hoc TG published recommendations for the format of warnings in instructional literature. The instructional literature requirements in ASTM F404-18 are based on those recommendations, and CPSC believes that the requirements are appropriate and address commenters' concerns. ASTM F404-18, section 9.3, clarifies that instructional literature is not required to meet the same color requirements as on-product labels. Instead, section 9.4 of ASTM F404-18 provides flexibility, stating that warnings must stand out within instructional literature, by requiring “the signal word and safety alert symbol [to] contrast with the background of the signal word panel, and the warnings [to] contrast with the background of the instructional literature.”

Comment: Two commenters stated that the sentence “Additional warnings similar to the statements included in this section shall also be included,” which was in proposed § 1231.2(e)(1) in the NPR, was unclear.

Response: The ASTM high chairs subcommittee replaced this statement in ASTM F404-18 with a new section 9.3, which states: “The instructions shall address the following additional warnings.” This modification should resolve any confusion.

Comment: Two commenters stated that the note proposed in the NPR, referring readers to ANSI Z535.6 for “optional additional guidance,” may not be clear to manufacturers or test laboratories.

Response: ASTM standards regularly use “notes” to make suggestions that are not mandatory requirements. Because other ASTM standards include notes, manufacturers and test laboratories understand their meaning and know that they are not requirements. In addition, the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, which were developed in collaboration with industry members, reference ANSI Z535.6 for additional guidance on the design of warnings in instructional literature. In accordance with that recommendation, ASTM F404-18 includes the note referring to ANSI Z535.6.

Comment: CPSC received three comments about restaurant-style high chairs. Commenters suggested that stability or warning and instructional requirements, alone, would be adequate for restaurant-style high chairs; that there should be a separate commercial high chair standard; or that no standard is necessary for these products. Commenters cited several reasons to create a different standard for restaurant-style high chairs. For example, commenters noted that restaurant settings make particular features useful in a high chair, such as large seats, trayless designs, and the ability to stack multiple high chairs. In addition, consumer behavior, such as more-attentive supervision of children, may occur in restaurant settings. Moreover, commenters stated, injury data do not indicate a need to regulate these products. One manufacturer noted receiving complaints about a restaurant-style high chair that conformed to ASTM F404. The complaints stated that it was difficult for children to get in and out of the chair, the chair did not accommodate children wearing bulky clothing, and the chair did not accommodate children over one-year old. One commenter noted that some restaurant-style high chairs are only available through commercial portals, while another commenter noted that restaurant-style high chairs are sold to the public for home use. Commenters suggested using educational efforts, such as affixing labels or instructions to restaurant-style high chairs to inform consumers and restaurant staff about proper use, the intended setting, and hazards; or providing similar information on packaging, product websites, and at points of sale.

Response: CPSC understands that there may be differences in the useful features and level of supervision in restaurant settings and homes. It is possible that requiring restaurant-style high chairs to meet ASTM F404-18 would interfere with design features that make high chairs useful in a restaurant setting, such as large leg openings. In addition, it is possible that design features that meet ASTM F404-18 could contribute to injuries in a restaurant setting. For example, small leg openings could make it more difficult to remove children from a high chair when they are wearing bulky outerwear or shoes; or consumers may opt for potentially hazardous alternatives to a high chair if the high chair is inconvenient to use, such as placing children on an unsecured and elevated chair. However, CPSC staff does not have evidence that these possibilities will occur.

To the contrary, CPSC has several reasons to believe that the final rule should apply to all high chairs, including restaurant-style high chairs. First, after issuing the NPR, CPSC staff further examined incident data to determine the extent to which high chair-related injuries occur in restaurant settings. Staff found that between 2011 and 2016, there were an estimated 1,600 injuries treated in U.S. EDs that involved high chairs in restaurant settings. Most incidents involved children falling from high chairs, commonly when climbing into or out of the high chair, when the high chair tipped over, or when restraints were not used, failed, or were defeated. These hazard patterns are consistent with high chair incidents in homes. As a result, CPSC believes that there is no safety justification to exclude restaurant-style high chairs from the final rule.

Second, although only a small number of firms sell restaurant-style high chairs directly to consumers for use in their homes, these sales indicate that the features and settings for restaurant-style high chairs do not provide a basis for distinguishing them from home-use high chairs. CPSC staff identified four firms that supply high chairs to the U.S. market that sell their high chairs to both consumers and restaurants.

Third, CPSIA section 104 requires the Commission to adopt a mandatory standard that is substantially the same as the voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard. Because ASTM F404 applies to all high chairs, excluding restaurant-style products from the mandatory standard would make the mandatory standard less stringent than the voluntary standard, contrary to the CPSIA requirement.

Section 1231.2(a) of the final rule requires high chairs to comply with ASTM F404-18 and incorporates the standard by reference. Section V of this preamble describes the OFR requirements for incorporating material by reference. In accordance with those requirements, section V summarizes ASTM F404-18, explains how the standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested parties may obtain a copy of the standard.

The final rule also amends 16 CFR part 1112 to add a new § 1112.15(b)(44) that lists 16 CFR part 1231, Safety Standard for High Chairs, as a children's product safety rule for which the CPSC has issued an NOR. Section XIII of this preamble provides additional information about certifications and NORs.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires that agencies set an effective date for a final rule that is at least 30 days after the Federal Register publishes the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The NPR proposed that the final rule for high chairs, and the amendment to part 1112, would take effect 6 months after publication. CPSC received comments requesting an implementation date of 1 year, asserting that additional time would be necessary for firms to modify products to meet the standard. CPSC believes that 1 year is sufficient for firms to modify their products to meet the new standard. Therefore, this rule will take effect 1 year after publication in the Federal Register, and will apply to products manufactured or imported on or after that date.

This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under the PRA, CPSC must estimate the “burden” associated with each “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3506(c).

In this rule, section 8 of ASTM F404-18 contains labeling requirements that meet the definition of “collection of information” in the PRA. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). In addition, section 9 of ASTM F404-18 requires instructions to be provided with high chairs; however, CPSC believes this requirement can be excluded from the PRA burden estimate. OMB allows agencies to exclude from the PRA burden estimate any “time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities,” if the disclosure activities required to comply are “usual and customary.” 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Because high chairs generally require use and assembly instructions, and CPSC staff is not aware of high chairs that generally require instructions but lack them, CPSC believes that providing instructions with high chairs is “usual and customary.” For this reason, CPSC's burden estimate includes only the labeling requirements.

The preamble to the NPR discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and requested comments on the accuracy of CPSC's estimates. 80 FR 69158 to 69159. CPSC did not receive any comments about the information collection burden of the proposed rule. However, the information collection burden has changed since the NPR because CPSC staff has identified 68 high chair suppliers (59 domestic firms and 9 foreign firms), rather than the 62 firms identified in the NPR, that it estimates will be subject to the information collection burden. Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is as follows:

Electronic and Facsimile Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's website (www.treas.gov/ofac).

On August 4, 2003, OFAC promulgated the Rough Diamonds Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 592 (the “Regulations”), to implement Executive Order 13312 (E.O. 13312) of July 29, 2003. E.O. 13312 was issued to implement the Clean Diamond Trade Act (Pub. L. 108-19) (CDTA) and the multilateral Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds (KPCS). OFAC amended the Regulations on September 23, 2004 to revise certain reporting requirements (69 FR 56936). OFAC further amended the Regulations on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 29433) to enhance the compilation of statistical data relating to the importation and exportation of rough diamonds.

Today, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau), Department of State, and Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), OFAC is again amending the Regulations. First, in coordination with a regulatory amendment by the Census Bureau (83 FR 17749), OFAC is incorporating into the Regulations existing Census Bureau requirements for submission of Kimberley Process Certificates in connection with the importation and exportation of rough diamonds. In addition, OFAC is clarifying which entity may issue Kimberley Process Certificates for the export of rough diamonds from the United States and adding two definitions that define rough diamond packaging requirements and Kimberley Process voided certificates. Additionally, OFAC is making certain technical and conforming changes to the penalties section of the Regulations.

Reporting requirements. First, in coordination with a regulatory amendment by the Census Bureau, OFAC is amending § 592.301 to incorporate existing Census Bureau requirements for submission of Kimberley Process Certificates in connection with the importation and exportation of rough diamonds. The Census Bureau is amending the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), 15 CFR part 30, to clarify that the data it collects from Kimberley Process Certificates is collected in compliance with the CDTA and not Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), and to clarify submission requirements for and permissible uses of the Kimberley Process Certificates. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of § 592.301, OFAC is incorporating the existing requirement pursuant to the FTR that importers or customs brokers provide a copy of the Kimberley Process Certificate accompanying a shipment of rough diamonds to the Census Bureau immediately after entry of the rough diamonds in the United States. In paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, OFAC is incorporating the FTR requirement that, with respect to rough diamond exports, the U.S. Principal Party in Interest or U.S. authorized agent, see 15 CFR 30.1, must provide a copy of the Kimberley Process Certificate to the Census Bureau immediately after export from the United States. In paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, OFAC is incorporating the FTR requirement that any voided certificate be provided to the Census Bureau immediately upon voiding.

At the same time, in consultation with the Department of State, the Census Bureau, and CBP, OFAC is removing the requirement that all rough diamond importers and exporters file annual reports with the Department of State detailing their import, export, and stockpile information as previously set forth in § 592.502. OFAC has removed this requirement as unnecessary in light of alternate sources from which to obtain relevant information.

Additional clarifications. In § 592.301, OFAC is also adding new paragraph (a)(4) and amending and redesignating current paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(5). New paragraph (a)(4) of this section clarifies the criteria that a Kimberley Process Certificate issuer must meet, while an accompanying note clarifies that, as reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the Department of State, the Census Bureau, and U.S. Kimberley Process Authority (USKPA), a non-profit association, Kimberley Process Certificates for the exportation of rough diamonds from the United States may only be issued at this time by the USKPA or by entities licensed to do so by the USKPA. The new paragraph also states that Kimberley Process Certificates may be issued “on behalf of” this entity. In addition, amended and redesignated paragraph (a)(5) of this section clarifies the steps necessary to validate a Kimberley Process Certificate prior to exporting rough diamonds from the United States.

Definitions. OFAC is adding two definitions to the Regulations. The term Voided certificate, used in § 592.301(a)(1)(v), is defined in new § 592.313. Consistent with CBP's practice, OFAC defines the term Voided certificate to mean “a Kimberley Process Certificate intended to be used for the exportation of rough diamonds from the United States that has been cancelled, for reasons such as loss or error.”

OFAC is also defining the term Tamper-resistant container, used in § 592.301(a)(2), by adding new § 592.314. Consistent with CBP practice, OFAC defines the term Tamper-resistant container to mean “packaging having an indicator or barrier to entry that could reasonably be expected to provide visible evidence that tampering had occurred.” A note to the definition further clarifies that standard mailing and express consignment packaging, or such packaging that simply contains a resealable plastic bag, is not considered to be a tamper-resistant container. This definition is intended to foster uniformity in CBP's enforcement of rough diamond shipping requirements. OFAC is also making a conforming change in paragraph (a)(2) of § 592.301 by changing “Tamper-resistant container” to “Tamper-resistance requirement.”

Penalties. OFAC is also amending Subpart F, which describes the penalties applicable to violations of the Regulations, as well as the procedures governing the potential imposition of a civil monetary penalty or issuance of a Finding of Violation. OFAC is updating the language of this subpart and incorporating references to OFAC's Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines contained in appendix A to part 501 of this chapter.

Because the amendments to the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

With respect to section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507 (PRA), the collections of information in §§ 592.301(a)(1)(i) and (ii), 592.501, and 592.603 of the Regulations are made pursuant to OFAC's Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations (31 CFR part 501) and have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 1505-0164. Pursuant to the Census Bureau, the collections of information in § 592.301(a)(1)(iii)-(v) and in § 592.301(a)(5) related to exporter and importer reporting requirements and the FTR previously were approved by OMB under control number 0607-0152.

OMB Approval 1505-0198: Report to foreign exporting authority. The collection of information in § 592.301(a)(3) has been submitted to OMB for review and approval under control number 1505-0198. This collection of information assists in carrying out the requirements of the CDTA and KPCS and monitoring the integrity of international shipments of rough diamonds, including that the United States produce statistics on imports and exports of rough diamonds and that these statistics be made available for analysis by interested parties, including other governments participating in the KPCS. The information collected will be used to assist the Census Bureau in carrying out its statistics-related functions and the State Department in its KPCS oversight functions, and to further the compliance, enforcement, and civil penalty programs of OFAC, CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, each of which has enforcement authority under the CDTA and various implementing regulations. See §§ 5(a) and 8 of the CDTA.

OMB Approval 1505-0198: Annual State report. The collection of information previously in § 592.502 and approved by OMB under control number 1505-0198 has been removed as unnecessary in light of alternate sources from which to obtain relevant information.

With respect to all of the foregoing collections of information, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless the collection of information displays a current, valid OMB control number.

The likely respondents and recordkeepers affected by the collection of information in § 592.301(a)(3) (report to foreign exporting authority) and the removal of the collection of information in § 592.502 (Annual State report) are rough diamond importers and exporters. The anticipated number of respondents is approximately 80. OFAC expects that the majority of these respondents will report to foreign exporting authorities approximately 15 times per year. Based on information from rough diamond traders and CBP's experience, roughly 1,200 individual transaction reports are expected annually. The total number of burden hours associated with the individual transaction reports is anticipated to be 200. This is based on an estimated completion and submission time of 10 minutes per report. This is a decrease of 300 burden hours from the prior hour burden based on current estimates that indicate there are fewer respondents and fewer imports than previously assumed. Based on information from rough diamonds traders, OFAC does not expect the hour burden on respondents to vary widely. Additionally, OFAC understands that it is the customary and usual business practice for most traders to send a detailed acknowledgment of receipt of a shipment to their overseas counterparts to the transaction.

As this regulatory amendment removes the annual State reporting requirement, the total number of burden hours is reduced by an estimated 1,250 hours. This is based on an estimated completion and submission time of five hours per report. The overall reduction in burden hours is therefore this reduction of 1,250 burden hours plus the reduction of 300 burden hours with respect to the report to foreign exporting authorities for a total reduction of 1,550 burden hours. The aggregate burden hours now associated with this information collection is 200 burden hours.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques and other forms of information technology; and (e) the estimated capital or start-up costs of the operation, maintenance, and/or purchase of services to provide information. Comments concerning the above information and the accuracy of these burden estimates, and suggestions for reducing this burden, should be directed to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Washington, DC 20503 or by email to: [email protected], with a copy to Chief of Records, Attention: Request for Comments, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Freedman's Bank Building, Washington, DC 20220. Any such comments should be submitted not later than July 19, 2018. All comments on the collections of information in § 592.301(a)(3) and the removal of the collection of information in § 592.502 will be a matter of public record.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Foreign Assets Control amends 31 CFR part 592 as follows:

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that certain vessels of the Virginia SSN Class are vessels of the Navy which, due to their special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with their special function as a naval ship: Rule 23(a) and Annex I, paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the vertical placement of the masthead, light and Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the masthead light being above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Rule 30 (a), Rule 21(e), and Annex I, paragraph 2(k), pertaining to the vertical separation of the anchor lights, vertical placement of the forward anchor light above the hull, and the arc of visibility of all around lights; Rule 23 (a) and Annex I, paragraph 3(b), pertaining to the location of the sidelights; and Rule 21(c), pertaining to the location and arc of visibility of the sternlight. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on these vessels in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect these vessel's ability to perform their military functions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of the approval of this project by the State of Michigan and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers on May 22, 2018. Delaying this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and workers from the potential hazards associated with diving operations and installation of additional pipeline anchors.

We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to wait for the 30 day notice period to run because we must establish this safety zone immediately to protect the public from the hazards associated with diving operations and installation of additional pipeline anchors.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

This rule establishes a safety zone from June 15, 2018 until September 4, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Michigan, Straits of Mackinac within 500ft of a construction barge and tug. This rule is needed to protect the public and workers within the safety zone while diving operations and installation of additional pipeline anchors are taking place.

This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the public and workers during the aforementioned operations. The temporary safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters within 500ft of the barge “Big Digger” while operating in the Mackinac Straits between the areas marked on chart 14880 as “Pipeline & Cable Area.” The western boundary is a line from 45°50′1″ N, 084°46′05″ W to 45°47′30″ N, 084°47′00″ W. The eastern boundary is a line from 45°50′20″ N, 084°45′08″ W to 45°47′20″ N, 84°46′14″ W. The safety zone will be enforced until September 4, 2018.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906-635-3233.

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

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule is confined to area encompassing urgent operations. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zones when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of the vessels intending to transit in the vicinity of the safety zone.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons identified in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Further, the Coast Guard will give advance notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners so the public can plan accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a safety zone and, therefore, is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. However, we seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones in 33 CFR 165.918 as per the time, dates, and locations in Table 1.

This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks displays. The regulations for safety zones within the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone, § 165.918, apply for these fireworks displays.

In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information broadcasts.

On February 22, 2018 the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register (82 FR 16012) entitled “Safety Zones; Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth Zone.” The NPRM proposed to amend seven permanent safety zones, add three new safety zones, increase the safety zone radius of six existing fireworks events, and modify the format of the regulations in a table format for annually recurring events in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone under § 165.943. The aforementioned NPRM was open for comment for 30 days in which one comment was received.

As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published February 22, 2018. The submission was not relevant to the rulemaking and no substantive changes were made to the rule based upon this comment. We made nonsubstantive editorial changes in the regulatory text of this rule that vary from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule is necessary to ensure seven existing regulations receive updated coordinates, add three new safety zones, increase the radius of six established fireworks events, and have the existing regulations published in a table format. The updated coordinates are necessary to ensure safety zones are in place at the appropriate location of the event. The addition of three new safety zones, all of which are fireworks events, will help prevent injury to spectators from the pyrotechnics. The increase of safety zone radius for six published rules is necessary to protect the public when larger pyrotechnic shell sizes are used during the fireworks displays. A table format increases the readability of published safety zones.

This rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator as stated in the published NPRM. The safety zones will impact small designated areas within Lake Superior for short durations of time. Upon notification from the event sponsor, the date and times for each safety zone will be contained in a published Notice of Enforcement issued by the COTP Duluth. Any small entity that maybe impacted by these regulations at a future date are welcome to contact the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Duluth (COTP) has determined that an amendment to the recurring events list as published in 33 CFR 165.943 will be necessary to: Update the location of seven existing safety zones (Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display, Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks Display, Point to LaPointe Swim, Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival, Superior Man Triathlon), add three new safety zones for additional annual events (City of Bayfield 4th of July Fireworks Display, Two Harbors 4th of July Fireworks Display, and Superior 4th of July Fireworks Display), increase the safety zone radius of six fireworks events (Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks Display, Ashland 4th of July Fireworks Display, Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display, Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display, LaPointe 4th of July Fireworks Display, and Lake Superior Dragon Boat Festival), and format the existing regulations into a table format. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled events and to improve the overall clarity and readability of the rule.

The amendments are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual events taking place on or near federally maintained waterways in the Captain of the Port Duluth Zone. Although this rule will be in effect year-round, the specific safety zones listed in Table 1 to § 165.943 will only be enforced during a specified period of time when the event is on-going.

When a Notice of Enforcement for a particular safety zone is published, entry into, transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth, or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port Duluth or his or her designated representative can be contacted via VHF Channel 16. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 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. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day for each safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around all safety zones which will impact small designated areas within Lake Superior for short durations of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves: The update of seven safety zone locations, the addition of three new safety zones, an increase of size for six safety zone radiuses for fireworks related events, and the reformatting of regulations into an easier to read table format. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

On September 22, 2017, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted revisions to the SIP provisions regulating open burning of crop residue in the state to EPA for approval. On January 22, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve all of the revisions requested in the September 22, 2017 submittal. We are taking final action for the reasons explained in the January 22, 2018 notification of proposed approval (83 FR 2955). Please see our proposed approval for further explanation and the basis for our finding. The public comment period for this proposal ended on February 21, 2018. EPA received public comments on the proposed rulemaking. Summaries of the comments as well as EPA's responses to adverse comments are in Section II of this rulemaking action. After consideration of the comments, we do not believe any changes in the rationale or conclusions in the proposed approval are appropriate.

EPA received comments on a variety of issues related to the proposed approval of Idaho's crop residue burning SIP revisions. Out of a total of ten comments received, three were supportive of EPA's approval of the SIP revisions, four were adverse to the EPA's proposed approval, and three were determined to be not germane to this action. A full copy of all comments received is available in the docket for final action.

EPA received public comments arguing that the NAAQS are not adequately protective of public health in the context of crop residue burning and should not be relied upon as the basis for approval of the proposed crop residue burning SIP revisions. One commenter stated that because the PM2.5 NAAQS takes the form of a 24-hour average that it allows “spikes” of emissions that are sufficient to “kill citizens, especially children with undeveloped lungs, the elderly, and anyone with underlying heart or lung diseases.” Another commenter urged EPA to disapprove the proposed SIP revisions, citing studies that they assert demonstrate negative human health impacts to exposure to ozone at levels below the NAAQS.

These comments relate to the adequacy of the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, and are therefore outside of the scope of this action. The CAA contains provisions that specifically address the establishment and review of the NAAQS. To briefly summarize, under sections 108 and 109 of the Act, EPA issues “air quality criteria” and establishes NAAQS for certain air pollutants. CAA section 109(d)(1) requires EPA to periodically review, and if appropriate, revise the air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare, and to periodically review, and if appropriate revise, the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary (health-based) standard as one “the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite to protect the public health.” In setting primary NAAQS that are “requisite” to protect public health, as provided in section 109(b), EPA's task is to establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent than necessary for these purposes. See generally Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 465-472, 475-76 (2001).

Pursuant to those provisions, EPA completed its last review of the ozone NAAQS in 2015 (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). With respect to the primary standard, in that review EPA determined that the NAAQS should be revised to provide the requisite protection of public health (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). Accordingly, based on careful consideration of the extensive information in the record, including a thorough review of scientific evidence and information about ozone-related health effects, quantitative assessments that estimated public health risks associated with just meeting the prior ozone NAAQS and various alternative standards that were considered, advice from EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and public comments received in response to the proposal, the Administrator revised the level of the primary ozone NAAQS to 0.070 parts per million, and retained the other elements of the prior standard (indicator, form, and averaging time) (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015). In so doing, she concluded that the revised primary standard is requisite to protect public health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety (80 FR 65365, October 26, 2015).1 EPA provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the proposal for this action (79 FR 75234, December 17, 2014) and there was an opportunity to file petitions for judicial review pursuant to CAA section 307.

Similarly, EPA completed its last periodic review of the PM NAAQS in 2012, and published notice of its decision to revise the PM NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013). With regard to the primary NAAQS for PM2.5, in that review EPA revised the annual PM2.5 standard, including by lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) so as to provide increased protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures (including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease), and retained the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m3 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013).2 The Administrator concluded that with the revisions in that review the suite of standards would be requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety against health effects potentially associated with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures (78 FR 3164, January 15, 2013). EPA provided notice and an opportunity for public comment on the proposal for this action (77 FR 38890, June 29, 2012) and there was an opportunity to file petitions for judicial review pursuant to CAA section 307. Since then, EPA has initiated the next periodic review of the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM (see 79 FR 71764, December 3, 2014; 81 FR 22977-78, April 19, 2016).

These actions revising the primary NAAQS for PM and ozone, and the related conclusions that the 2012 PM NAAQS and 2015 ozone NAAQS are requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, are beyond the scope of this action. This action concerns a SIP submission under CAA section 110, and under section 110(a) such plans are to “provide[ ] for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of the primary NAAQS. EPA does not revisit the adequacy of the NAAQS when taking action on proposed SIP modifications related to that pollutant. Rather, EPA reasonably focuses on a determination of whether a SIP amendment will ensure attainment and maintenance with the NAAQS as the relevant and applicable standard for approvals of SIP revisions under CAA section 110.

In the matter at hand, Idaho requested a revision to the ozone concentration level at which IDEQ may authorize (authorization level) agricultural crop residue burning (CRB). The requested revision does not change the authorization levels for any other NAAQS and all other CRB requirements remain unchanged. For the reasons provided in our proposal for this action, we conclude that approval of Idaho's submitted SIP revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. 83 FR 2955, January 22, 2018.

Several commenters expressed concern about Idaho's failure to evaluate how an increase in ozone emissions from crop residue burning would interact with other pollutants to impact public health. The commenters argued that Idaho has a duty to demonstrate that its proposed SIP revisions will not increase risks to public health. Several commenters objected to the SIP revision on the basis that the changes are not in the public interest and constitutes a weakening of a health-based standard. Commenters cited both impacts to public health associated with crop residue burning from both ozone and fine particles (PM2.5). One commenter asserted that Idaho did not consider the cumulative public health impacts of frequent or multiple exposures to PM from sources including both CRB and wildfires. They argue that Idaho did not adequately consider other pollutants (such as PM or CO) described as “by-products” of biomass burning, and more specifically did not consider the combined effects of PM2.5, CO and ozone, as well as toxics such as “benzene, PAH's [sic] and others” that are in the air as a result of either CRB or from wildfires. One commenter argued that in the absence of “conclusive studies of the effects of breathing all these substances at once, . . . maintaining the 75% of all NAAQS is the only proven way” to protect public health. The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) argued that Idaho's SIP submission “failed to provide sufficient justification that remaining CAA requirements would not be violated” and specifically cited section 101 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)) to support its assertion.

As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking in this matter, whether or not a SIP revision will interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA is the relevant basis for approval or disapproval. SIPs, under CAA section 110, implement the NAAQS contained in CAA section 109 which are specific to the six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) such as benzene and PAHs, in general, are not regulated under Title I of the CAA and are not relevant to EPA determinations of whether or not a SIP revision meets the relevant requirements of the Act. Contrary to the arguments raised by these commenters, EPA does not have authority under the CAA to consider whether a proposed SIP revision will result in a general increased risk to public health (whether it be from one pollutant considered in isolation or the synergistic effects of human exposure to multiple pollutants interacting with one another) so long as the state can demonstrate that the SIP will result in the attainment or maintenance of the relevant NAAQS.

ICL cites CAA section 101(b)(1) in support of its assertion that Idaho's SIP submission does not meet the requirements of the CAA, and that Idaho had not provided a sufficient justification that CAA requirements not related to the ozone NAAQS would not be violated. CAA section 101(b)(1) provides a declaration of one of the purposes of Title I of the Act, namely “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that CAA section 101(b)(1) authorizes EPA to disapprove a SIP revision based on the cumulative impacts of pollutants in evaluating a state's implementation plan under Title I.

One commenter disputed Idaho's assertion that raising the burn authorization trigger from 75% to 90% of the ozone NAAQS will facilitate authorizing burning on days when the conditions for pollutant dispersion are better. Multiple commenters asserted that Idaho did not consider alternative options to crop residue burning, including the option of simply not authorizing burns on days when the NAAQS will exceed the current 75% burning authorization level (e.g., making no changes to the current SIP-approved rules). The commenters cited the current 75% of the NAAQS SIP limit to be the product of a compromise of interests, and one that anticipated that monitored averages would not be an adequate gauge of actual PM2.5 or other criteria pollutant exposure, and thus provided a margin of safety to public health that the proposed SIP revision would eliminate. One commenter stated that the ozone monitoring network in Idaho could be “more robust.”

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Failure to consider alternatives to the proposed SIP revision is not a basis for disapproval. Even if the existing SIP burning threshold was originally established as a consensus-based standard at the state level taking into account the factors identified by the commenters, EPA cannot substitute its judgement or policy preferences for Idaho's lawfully submitted SIP revision so long as the SIP revision is consistent with the CAA's requirements. As explained in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that the SIP revision will not interfere with continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in Idaho. Potential effects of the revision on attainment and maintenance is limited to the ozone NAAQS because the SIP submission does not alter any requirements related to other criteria pollutants. Under such circumstances, nothing in the CAA prohibits a state from modifying its SIP requirements to address its current air quality management needs.

As explained in EPA's notification of proposed approval, EPA concludes that Idaho has adequately demonstrated that it will continue to attain the ozone NAAQS after raising its ozone burning threshold. To the extent that the commenter is raising concerns about the adequacy of the Idaho ozone monitoring network to detect ozone NAAQS violations, it is relevant to note that EPA regularly assesses the adequacy of states' monitoring networks for all pollutants pursuant to its review of each state's Annual Network Monitoring Plan. EPA's most recent evaluation of the Idaho ozone monitoring network was addressed in its November 8, 2017, approval letter (included in the docket for this action). EPA's approval letter identified areas where an ozone monitor may need to be added in the future. EPA will continue to monitor the adequacy of the ozone monitoring network to determine if the network must be expanded to comply with 40 CFR part 58 requirements.

EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference where appropriate in Idaho's SIP, all revisions requested by Idaho on September 22, 2017 to the following provisions:

• IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 (Burn Approval Criteria, state effective February 28, 2018); and

• Idaho Code 39-114 (Open Burning of Crop Residue, state effective February 28, 2018).

We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent with section 110 and part C of Title I of the CAA.

In this rule, EPA is approving regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above in Section III. Final Action and set forth below, as amendments to 40 CFR part 52. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 20, 2018. 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)).

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

As part of NASA's retrospective review of existing regulations NASA is conducting periodic reviews of the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to ensure the accuracy of information disseminated to the acquisition community. This rule makes administrative changes to the NFS to correct typographical errors as well as inadvertent omissions from prior rulemaking actions. A summary of changes follows:

• Section 1801.105-1, paragraph (b)(iii), is revised to update the internet link to “https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/NFS.pdf ”.

• Section 1803.906, paragraph (d), is revised by replacing the word “Unites” with the word “United”.

• Section 1804.170 is revised to remove the paragraph designations “(a)” and “(b)” and combine the two paragraphs.

• Section 1815.203-72 is revised to remove the redundant words “and RFOs”.

• Section 1815.305-70, paragraph (a)(3), is revised by replacing the word “eficiencies” with the word “deficiencies”.

• Section 1852.215-79 is revised by replacing the clause reference “52.215-21” with the clause reference “52.215-9”.

• Section 1852.216-76 is revised to remove the words “, e.g., issuance of unilateral modification by contracting officer” from paragraph (c).

• Section 1852.245-71 is revised to provide space for a contracting officer to “check” if property and services are provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (11).

• Section 1852.247-71 is revised by replacing the word “Mammals” with the word “Mammal” in paragraph (a).

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1803, 1804, 1815, and 1852 are amended as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region includes golden tilefish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

On January 2, 2018, NMFS published the final temporary rule to implement interim measures to reduce overfishing of golden tilefish in South Atlantic Federal waters (83 FR 65). The final temporary rule reduced the total ACL for golden tilefish to 323,000 lb (146,510 kg), gutted weight, 361,760 lb (164,092 kg), round weight. In addition, the final temporary rule reduced the commercial and recreational sector ACLs and component commercial quotas, using the existing sector allocations, and the quotas for the hook-and-line and longline components of the commercial sector. Therefore, during the effectiveness of the final temporary rule and this temporary rule extension, the commercial ACL is 313,310 lb (142,115 kg), gutted weight; the commercial quota for the hook-and-line component is 78,328 lb (35,529 kg), gutted weight; and the commercial quota for the longline component is 234,982 lb (106,586 kg), gutted weight. The recreational ACL during the effectiveness of the final temporary rule and this temporary rule extension is 2,187 fish, which is equivalent to 9,690 lb (4,395 kg), gutted weight. This temporary rule extension continues the measures in the final temporary rule unchanged for an additional 186 days, unless this temporary rule extension is superseded by subsequent rulemaking. The purpose of these interim measures is to reduce the overfishing of golden tilefish in South Atlantic Federal waters, while long-term management measures are developed and implemented through Regulatory Amendment 28 to the FMP. The January 2, 2018, final temporary rule stated that long-term management measures would be developed through Amendment 45 to the FMP. The Council subsequently determined that an FMP amendment was not required, and that the same management measures could be developed and implemented using the existing FMP framework procedures. Regulatory Amendment 28 will include management measures to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a long-term basis.

Regulatory Amendment 28 is scheduled to be approved by the Council at their June 2018 meeting and implemented prior to the expiration of the interim measures in this temporary rule extension in the 2019 fishing year, which begins on January 1, 2019.

Section 305(c)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the Council the authority to request interim measures, if necessary, to reduce overfishing. The Council sent a letter to NMFS, dated June 27, 2017, to request that NMFS implement interim measures to immediately reduce overfishing of golden tilefish while long-term management measures are developed to end overfishing of golden tilefish. Section 305(c)(3)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for interim measures to be extended for one additional period of 186 days provided that the public has had an opportunity to comment on the interim measures and that the Council is actively preparing an FMP amendment to address the overfishing on a permanent basis. NMFS published a proposed temporary rule on October 30, 2017, and requested public comments on these interim measures (82 FR 50101). NMFS responded to public comments in the final temporary rule published on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 65).

The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that the interim measures extended through this temporary rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the South Atlantic golden tilefish stock, until long-term measures are implemented, and are consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This temporary rule extension has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This temporary rule extension is exempt from the procedures of the RFA, because the rule is issued without the opportunity for prior notice and public comment.

NMFS prepared an EA for the interim measures contained in the January 2, 2018, final temporary rule (83 FR 65). The EA analyzed the impacts of reduced harvest through the 2018 fishing year, which includes the impacts related to extending the interim measures. Therefore, the impacts of extending the interim measures through this temporary rule have already been considered. Electronic copies of the EA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

This temporary rule extension responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment, pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures for this temporary rule extension are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because NMFS already published a proposed temporary rule on October 30, 2017, and requested public comments on these interim measures, including their potential extension (82 FR 50101). NMFS responded to public comments in the final temporary rule published on January 2, 2018 (83 FR 65). This temporary rule extension continues the interim measures unchanged for an additional 186 days.

Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because of the need to continue these interim measures without interruption to protect the golden tilefish stock until the Council and NMFS can prepare and possibly implement management measures under Regulatory Amendment 28 to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a permanent basis. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and could result in an interruption of the interim measures and, therefore, allow harvest in excess of ACLs and quotas implemented by this temporary rule extension, which would contribute to overfishing of golden tilefish. Allowing overfishing of golden tilefish to continue would be contrary to National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. National Standard 1 requires NMFS to conserve and manage ocean resources to prevent overfishing, while achieving the optimum yield from each fishery.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in this temporary rule extension's effectiveness, pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) as such procedure for this temporary rule extension is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. A delay in effectiveness is impracticable, because it would contribute to overfishing of golden tilefish, which is contrary to National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as stated previously. Without this temporary rule extension becoming effective immediately after the duration of and without interruption from the final temporary rule, which would end after July 1, 2018, the commercial and recreational sectors would be able to harvest golden tilefish under higher ACLs and quotas than those implemented by the final temporary rule and continued through this temporary rule extension. These harvests could result in further overfishing of golden tilefish, contrary to NMFS' statutory obligations. By implementing this temporary rule extension immediately, the total harvest of golden tilefish would be reduced until the Council and NMFS can prepare and possibly implement management measures under Regulatory Amendment 28 to end overfishing of golden tilefish on a permanent basis.

In addition, delaying the effectiveness of this final temporary rule for 30 days is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect golden tilefish. The capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the ACL. Delaying the effectiveness of this temporary rule extension would require time and could potentially result in a harvest in excess of the reduced ACLs implemented by this temporary rule extension, increasing the likelihood of future overfishing and more restrictive measures to address it.

Accordingly, the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the measures contained in this temporary rule extension is waived.

Regulations governing fishing activity in the Sea Scallop Access Areas can be found in 50 CFR 648.59 and 648.60. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Limited Access General Category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) scallop permit to fish in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area under specific conditions, including a total of 571 trips that may be taken during the 2018 fishing year. Section 648.59(g)(3)(iii) requires the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area to be closed to LAGC IFQ permitted vessels for the remainder of the fishing year once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator determines that the allowed number of trips for fishing year 2018 are projected to be taken.

Based on trip declarations by LAGC IFQ scallop vessels fishing in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area, analysis of fishing effort, and other information, NMFS projects that 571 trips will be taken as of June 18, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with § 648.59(g)(3)(iii), NMFS is closing the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area to all LAGC IFQ scallop vessels as of June 18, 2018. No vessel issued an LAGC IFQ permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area after 0001 local time, June 18, 2018. Any LAGC IFQ vessel that has declared into the Closed Area I Access Area scallop fishery, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitor system (VMS) demarcation line on the way to the area before 0001, June 18, 2018, may complete its trip without being subject to this closure. This closure is in effect for the remainder of the 2018 scallop fishing year, through March 31, 2019.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The Closed Area I Scallop Access Area opened for the 2018 fishing year on April 19, 2018. The regulations at § 648.59(g)(3)(iii) require this closure to ensure that LAGC IFQ scallop vessels do not take more than their allocated number of trips in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area. The projected date on which the LAGC IFQ fleet will have taken all of its allocated trips in an Access Area becomes apparent only as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends begin to appear. As a result, NMFS can only make an accurate projection very close in time to when the fleet has taken all of its trips. In order to propose a closure for purposes of receiving prior public comment, NMFS would need to make a projection based on very little information, which would result in a closure too early or too late. To allow LAGC IFQ scallop vessels to continue to take trips in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule would likely result in the vessels taking much more than the allowed number of trips in the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area. Excessive trips and harvest from the Closed Area I Scallop Access Area would result in excessive fishing effort in the area, where effort controls are critical, thereby undermining conservation objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process when it was enacted For these same reasons, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period.