Federal Register Vol. 83, No.123,

Discussion

We received information concerning damage to the engine fan hub found during an engine shop visit of an IAE PW1100G-series turbofan engine. The damage is believed to be the result of the installation of the inlet cone without using alignment pins, which might lead to bolts impacting and damaging the engine fan hub. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained failure of the engine fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

We reviewed Pratt & Whitney (PW) Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018. The SB describes procedures for performing a one-time visual inspection of the inlet cone mating face and counter weight flange on the engine fan hub assembly for surface damage. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This AD requires a one-time visual inspection of the engine fan hub for damage, and replacement of the engine fan hub if damage or defects are found that are outside of serviceable limits.

PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018, only applies to PW1100G-JM engine models in service. This AD applies to all PW1100G-JM engine models certified under type certificate E00087EN. PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D also excludes from its applicability certain serial numbered engines. We have no way to determine if these engines have been inspected and are therefore including these engines in the applicability of this AD.

We consider this AD interim action. An investigation to determine the cause of the failure is on-going and we may consider additional rulemaking if final action is identified.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the compliance time is less than the time required for public comment. In addition, all engine fan hubs must be inspected, and if needed, replaced before further flight. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and compliance for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0564 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-23-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 14 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, July 19, 2018.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

Congress enacted the CPSIA (Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016), including the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission 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 the Commission adopts under this mandate must be substantially the same as the applicable voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission 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 the Commission identified baby changing tables as a durable infant or toddler product in the product registration card rule codified in 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(14).

On September 29, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), proposing to incorporate by reference the then-current voluntary standard for baby changing products, ASTM F2388-16, with more stringent requirements for structural integrity, restraint system integrity, and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. 81 FR 66881. 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 F2388-18, in March 2018.

In this final rule, the Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F2388-18, with no modifications, as the mandatory safety standard for baby changing products. 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 baby changing products. This rule is based on information CPSC staff provided in its briefing package, “Draft Final Rule for Baby Changing Products for Domestic Use under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,” which is available on CPSC's website at: https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for %20Baby%20Changing%20Products %20-%20June%2013%202018.pdf?ZbvMCsfyQfLFivqHRbFWKclOordsuVeC.

ASTM F2388-18 defines a “changing product” as “one of the following: changing table, changing table accessory, add-on changing unit, contoured changing pad.” The standard defines each of those terms, as follows:

• A changing table is “an elevated, freestanding structure generally designed to support and retain a child with a body weight of up to 30 lb (13.6 kg) in a horizontal position for the purpose of allowing a caregiver to change the child's diaper. Changing tables may convert from or to other items of furniture, such as, but not limited to, a dresser, desk, hutch, bookshelf, or play yard, may have pull-out or drop-down changing surfaces, and may provide storage for diapers and diaper products”;

• a changing table accessory is “an accessory that attaches to a crib or play yard designed to convert the product into a changing table typically having a rigid frame with soft fabric or mesh sides or bottom surface, or both”;

• an add-on changing unit is “a rigid addition to or separate product used in conjunction with an item of furniture that provides barriers to prevent the infant from rolling off the product when a diaper is being changed”; and

• a contoured changing pad is “a changing pad designed for use on an elevated surface which incorporates barriers to prevent a child from rolling off the changing surface.” 1

Most changing tables and add-on changing units are constructed of wood; contoured changing pads often consist of synthetic-covered foam with contoured edges; and changing table accessories that attach to a play yard or crib generally are constructed of plastic or wood with a foam pad. Changing tables come in various designs, some of which include drawers, cabinets, or retractable stairs to assist children getting onto them.

CPSC staff has identified 102 domestic firms that currently supply baby changing products to the U.S. market. Eighty-four of the firms (61 manufacturers and 23 importers or wholesalers) are small, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) standards,2 and the remaining 18 firms are large. In addition, staff identified 17 foreign firms that supply baby changing products to the U.S. market, and one additional firm for which staff lacked sufficient information to determine a location or supply source. Staff also identified numerous baby changing products that are manufactured outside the United States and bought domestically through online sales.

At the time CPSC staff assessed the baby changing products market, staff identified 22 of the 61 small domestic manufacturers, and 10 of the 23 small domestic importers and wholesalers, as compliant with the ASTM standard for baby changing products (based on firms' assertions of compliance, certifications from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, or participation in the development of the ASTM changing products standard).

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 associated with specific consumer products that are treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (U.S. EDs) nationwide. 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).

For this rulemaking, CPSC staff reviewed the NEISS and CPSRMS databases for incidents involving baby changing products and children younger than 3 years old because that age corresponds with the 30-pound weight limit in the ASTM standard. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Health Statistics, Data Table of Infant Weight-for-Age Charts, http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/html_charts/wtageinf.htm (last visited Apr. 9, 2018).

The preamble to the NPR summarized reports of incidents involving baby changing products that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, which CPSC received through CPSRMS sources. For the final rule, CPSC staff has updated this information to reflect one reported changing product incident that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, but was not included in the NPR, as well as new incidents that occurred between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017. In total, CPSC has received 188 reports of incidents involving baby changing products that occurred between January 1, 2005 and November 30, 2017. These incidents involved 7 fatalities, 31 injuries or adverse health problems, 116 incidents that did not result in injuries, and 34 incidents for which CPSC did not receive sufficient information to determine whether an injury occurred.3

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 the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 3, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Erie, NY contained within 280-foot radius of: 42°08′17.13″ N, 080°05′30.17″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. 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 will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. 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.

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

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

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

On December 27, 2017, the Buffalo Vintage Boat Racing Association and BR Guest Inc., notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a regatta on July 1, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on the Buffalo Outer Harbor. In response, on April 25, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY (83 FR 17962, April 25, 2018). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this regatta. During the comment period that ended May 25, 2018, we received no relevant comments.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the planned regatta.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined the Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta presents significant risks to the public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the regatta takes place.

As noted above, we received no relevant comments on our NPRM published April 25, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 1, 2018 from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters at the start point at position 42°52′04″ N, 078°53′03″ W, then South to 42°51′07″ N, 078°52′09″ W (NAD 83) on the Outer Harbor in Buffalo, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. regatta.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regular action. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which impacts a small designated area of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, by transiting a short distance in Lake Erie. The safety zone will also have built in times where vessels will be able to transit through the regatta area during event breaks. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow 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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. 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.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 28, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 11:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, OH contained within 280-foot radius of: 41°54′06″ N, 080°47′49″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. 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 will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. 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.

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

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

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

On April 4, 2018, AFX Pro, LLC, notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 10 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018, for a wedding celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Mississippi River at the approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5 above Head of Passes near Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. In response, on April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA (83 FR 16817). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 17, 2018, we received one comment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this June 30, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile section of the river. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April 17, 2018. The comment was unrelated to the substance of this rule. Therefore, no changes were made to the regulatory text of the final rule based on the comment.

However, on April 18, 2018, AFX Pro, LLC notified the Coast Guard that the fireworks display would begin at 9 p.m. instead of 9.45 p.m. and end at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m., as we originally published in the NPRM. Therefore, the regulatory text of this rule updates the effective period in the NPRM to 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Mississippi River above Head of Passes between mile markers (MM) 94 and 95. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone is for only one hour and fifteen minutes on a one-mile section of the river. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) 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 would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour and fifteen minutes that will prohibit entry between mile marker 94 and mile marker 95 on the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes. 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.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause find that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” On April 19, 2018, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket Number USCG-2017-1112, to make temporary safety zones for annual events a final rule. This event was included in the NPRM. Its purpose was to mitigate potential threats to personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the specified safety zones. The NPRM addressed these concerns, and invited the public to comment during the comment period, which ended on May 21, 2018. As such, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM for this temporary rule because the public had opportunity to comment on it and no comments were received concerning this event.

Under 5 U.S.C 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH contained within 560-foot radius of: 41°29′23.9″ N, 081°55′44.5″ W.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. 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 will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. 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.

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

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

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

This action only applies to entities seeking credit assistance under the WIFIA program for the development and construction of a water infrastructure project. EPA has promulgated regulations to implement this program. A list of eligible entities and eligible projects can be found at 33 U.S.C. 3904 and 3905 and the Interim Final Rule at 40 CFR 35.10005.

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

Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

• Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

• Explain your views as clearly as possible.

• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

Section 5008(c)(2) of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, Public Law 114-322, added section 5029(b)(10) (33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10)) to the WIFIA authorizing legislation. This section requires that any eligible project costs incurred, and the value of any integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance be credited toward the 51 percent of project costs to be provided by sources of funding other than a WIFIA loan. 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10). This section provides WIFIA borrowers the opportunity to include costs incurred prior to receipt of assistance and the value of integral in-kind contributions made before receipt of assistance, in the calculation of total eligible costs in order to calculate the size of the loan. However, it does not address what costs can be reimbursed. The size of the project is important in determining the amount of funding that may be awarded to the WIFIA borrower (“size of the loan”) because the statute, at 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(2)(A), limits the size of the loan to 49 percent of the total reasonably anticipated eligible costs for the project. Instead of addressing the reimbursement of costs, 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10) uses the term “credited” and directs that certain costs be credited toward a category of costs, the 51 percent to be provided by a non-WIFIA source. Importantly, the statute does not prohibit the use of a WIFIA loan to reimburse eligible costs incurred prior to receipt of assistance. The WIFIA loan can therefore be used to reimburse any eligible cost, whether or not incurred prior to the receipt of assistance, except for the value of in-kind contributions which do not represent out-of-pocket costs to a borrower and are not costs for which a borrower would typically seek reimbursement or payment.

For these reasons, EPA is clarifying current regulations by adding to 40 CFR 35.10010(c) the clause “value of any integral in-kind contributions made” to allow these costs to be included in the calculation of eligible project costs and by changing “prior to a project sponsor's submission of an application for credit assistance” to “before receipt of credit assistance” to ensure that all such costs and integral in-kind contributions are included. EPA is also adding the clause, “such costs, excluding the value of any integral in-kind contributions, are payable from the proceeds of the WIFIA credit instrument” to ensure that such costs may be reimbursed from WIFIA loan proceeds.

Crediting prior costs and the value of integral in-kind contributions to the project increases the size of the project and, by extension, may increase the size of the WIFIA loan. For example, if a borrower has incurred $110 million in costs prior to the receipt of assistance, and anticipates incurring $90 million in costs after receipt of assistance, the size of the project would be $200 million. Looking at 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(2)(A) in isolation, EPA could potentially fund up to 49 percent of that $200 million, or $98 million. However, by further directing that the costs incurred and contributions made prior to receipt of assistance be credited toward the 51 percent of project costs to be provided by sources of funding other than WIFIA, 3908(b)(10) serves to limit the size of the loan if the borrower has completed a substantial portion of the overall project. In this example project, the size of the loan would be limited to $90 million because the $110 million of costs incurred prior to receipt of assistance must be credited to the 51 percent category of costs to be provided by non-WIFIA sources of funding, leaving only $90 million to be funded by WIFIA.

Costs and in-kind contributions must be directly related to the development or execution of the project including, for example, preliminary design, right-of-way acquisition, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance related costs, and construction related costs. The WIFIA program retains the right to ask for appropriate documentation as evidence of such costs and in-kind contributions for sizing of the WIFIA loan and, in the case of incurred costs, for reimbursement.

In addition, 40 CFR 35.10010(c) is amended by removing “[i]n addition, applicants shall not include application charges or any other expenses associated with the application process (such as charges associated with obtaining the required preliminary rating opinion letter) among the eligible project costs.” This sentence is redundant because 40 CFR 35.10005 provides a definition of eligible project costs from which the determination of eligibility of a cost can be determined. It causes confusion because it implies that fees charged by the WIFIA program cannot be included as an eligible project cost even though they are specifically allowed to be financed as part of a WIFIA loan by statute at 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7)(B). Furthermore, EPA has determined that the cost of obtaining rating opinion letters is eligible under 33 U.S.C. 3906(4) which states that “capitalized interest necessary to meet market requirements, reasonably required reserve funds, capital issuance expenses, and other carrying costs during construction” are eligible costs.

This interim final rule is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10) and 3911.

This action is not a significant regulatory action.

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

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this rule merely establishes the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. With this interim final rule, the EPA is amending the WIFIA regulations to clarify the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds. This interim final rule does not impose costs on small entities applying for a WIFIA loan. I have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. While a tribal government, or a consortium of tribal governments may apply for WIFIA credit assistance, this action does not have substantial direct effects 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.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because environmental health or safety risks are not addressed by this action.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This rulemaking simply establishes the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

Each project obtaining assistance under this program is required to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370). This rulemaking simply establishes the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds; therefore, by itself, this rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 35 is amended as follows:

I. What is the EPA taking final action to approve?

The EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Montana's PSD regulations as submitted by the State of Montana on October 14, 2016. We are taking final action to approve the following revision to Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii): Removing the phrase “averaged over a 24-hour period.”

We provided a detailed background in our proposed rulemaking, published on April 27, 2018. See 83 FR 18494. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on May 29, 2018.

In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking action on the State's October 14, 2016 submittal.

We received two comments during the public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response.

We are taking final action to approve changes to Montana's SIP—in particular the revisions to ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii), which removes the phrase “averaged over a 24-hour period”—as submitted on October 14, 2016. We are taking final action to approve this change, as it is consistent with the CAA and the EPA regulations as follows:

1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for . . . the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [the NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter”;

2. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. Montana's regulations in ARM 17.8 create enforceable obligations for sources;

3. CAA section 110(i) (with certain limited exceptions) prohibits states from modifying SIP requirements for stationary sources except through the SIP revision process. As described in our proposed rulemaking, Montana fulfilled this requirement;

4. CAA section 110(l), provides that the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that interferes with any applicable requirement of the Act. The revisions to ARM 17.8.818 would not interfere with sections 110(a)(2) and 110(i) of the Act, as they are in compliance with current federal regulations;

5. CAA section 161, which requires a SIP to contain emission limitations to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in regions designated as attainment or unclassifiable; and

6. Montana's SIP revision complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 as the plan imposes the regulatory requirements on individual sources, as required by the regulatory provisions.

In this action, the EPA is taking final action to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is taking final action to incorporate by reference a change to the State of Montana's SIP removing “averaged over a 24-hour period” from ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provision of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely finalizes approval of 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 expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,

• Is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 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).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

I. Background

On November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69298), EPA issued a final rule revising the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by adding tertiary butyl acetate (or t-Butyl acetate or TBAC) to the list of compounds that are considered to be negligibly reactive and excluded from the definition of VOC. Additionally, on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9339), EPA issued a final rule further revising the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate. EPA removed these requirements in part because there was no evidence that TBAC was being used at levels that cause concern for ozone formation and because the data that had been collected under these requirements had proven to be of limited utility in judging the cumulative impacts of exempted compounds.1 See 81 FR 9339, 9341.

On February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6822), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for changes to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by the South Carolina DHEC on September 5, 2017. The submission revises South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1—Definitions and General Requirements, specifically Section I—“Definitions,” by removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate. EPA received one adverse comment in the proposed rulemaking. After considering the adverse comment, EPA is now taking final action to approve the South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions” revision. For more information, see the February 15, 2018, NPRM.

Comment: EPA received one adverse comment to the revision to Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions.” The Commenter asserted that air quality policy should be based on no negative impacts on health, and as a result, stated, “This proposed revision would do the opposite because it fails to acknowledge the change in emissions that South Carolina could undertake after tert-butyl acetate (TBAc) is taken off the states list of volatile organic compounds. I reject this revision because EPA's logic for approval is flawed when they say, “. . . There was no evidence that TBAc was being used at levels that cause concern for ozone formation . . .”. The Commenter expressed concerns that the use of TBAC could change in South Carolina, and since record keeping and monitoring will no longer be required, this impact will not be assessed. Because of these concerns, the Commenter recommended that EPA prohibit South Carolina from adding TBAC to the negligibly reactive list and require South Carolina to continue monitoring TBAC. Finally, the Commenter noted health effects of TBAC.

Response: EPA previously approved South Carolina's revision of its definition of VOC which added t-Butyl acetate to the list of negligibly reactive compounds that are excluded from the State's definition of VOC. 72 FR 30704 (June 4, 2007). That prior rulemaking action is final and is not reopened in the current rulemaking action. Similarly, EPA's prior 2004 (60 FR 69298) final rulemaking that revised the definition of VOC to exclude TBAC as a negligibly reactive compound and EPA's 2016 (81 FR 9339) final rulemaking that removed TBAC recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC are also not reopened in the current rulemaking action. Rather, in the current action, the State is merely updating the SIP to remove the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC consistent with EPA's 2016 rulemaking and the federal definitions in 40 CFR 51.100(s).

With regard to health risks, EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the health effects associated with TBAC and is continuing to take steps to assess potential risks associated with this compound. In the 2016 EPA rule, EPA discussed the efforts surrounding any future determinations about the health risks associated with TBAC, including noting that data collected through the recordkeeping and reporting requirements did not appear relevant to any such future determinations and that EPA was assessing the health risks from TBAC through its Integrated Risk Information System. This effort is ongoing, and we refer the Commenter to EPA's previous 2016 rulemaking (81 FR 9339, 9341) for more information regarding health risks.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions,” effective August 25, 2017, which revises definitions applicable to the SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State's implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is approving the aforementioned change to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on September 5, 2017, because it is consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.

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

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

• 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

In addition, this final action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 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 section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

The EPA is taking final action to approve all revisions as submitted by the State of South Dakota on October 4, 2017, with the exception of the revisions that we are not acting on, as outlined in section II.A. of our proposed rulemaking published on April 27, 2018 (83 FR 18496).

We provided a detailed explanation of the bases for our proposed approval in our April 27, 2018 rulemaking, which will not be restated here. See 83 FR 18496. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on May 29, 2018.

In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking action on the rules from the State's October 4, 2017, submittal.

The changes we are taking final action to approve are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. Specifically:

1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for . . . the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter.”

2. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. Chapter 6, Section 13 creates enforceable obligations for sources by removing phrases such as “the plan shall provide” and “the plan may provide.”

In addition, the CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that do not require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permits. States may customize the requirements of the minor NSR program as long as their program meets minimum requirements.

Section 110(l) of the CAA states: “[e]ach revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” South Dakota's new revisions to ARSD 74:36 will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

We received three comments during the public comment period. The comments were not related to the EPA's proposed rulemaking for South Dakota's permitting program changes which was published on April 27, 2018. As such, we are not providing a response to the comments.

As outlined in our proposed rulemaking, the EPA finds that the addition of new, revised and removed rules to ARSD 74:36 will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of South Dakota and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act or the EPA regulations; and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve South Dakota's revisions as submitted on October 4, 2017.

Specifically, we are taking final action to approve the following revisions: 74:36:01:01 (Definitions)— 74:36:01:01(8), 74:36:01:01(29), 74:36:01:01(67), 74:36:01:05(1) and 74:36:01:20(5), (7), and (8); 74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality)—74:36:02:02, 74:36:02:03, 74:36:02:04 and 74:36:02:05; 74:36:03 (Air Quality Episodes)—74:36:03:01 and 74:36:03:02; 74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor Sources)—74:36:04:04; 74:36:06 (Regulated Air Pollutant Emissions)—74:36:06:07; 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)— 74:36:09:02 and 74:36:09:03; 74:36:10 (New Source Review)— 74:36:10:02, 74:36:10:03.01, 74:36:10:05, 74:36:10:07 and 74:36:10:08; 74:36:11 (Performance Testing)—74:36:11:01; 74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions)—74:36:12:01 and 74:36:12:03; 74:36:18 (Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area)—74:36:18:10; 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications)—74:36:20:05; 74:36:21 (Regional Haze Program)—74:36:21:02(8), 74:36:21:04, 74:36:21:05 and 74:36:21:09.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the State of South Dakota's revisions to its state implementation plan as described in section IV. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements; this action 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 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).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0225 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 27, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0225, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of October 23, 2017 (82 FR 49020) (FRL-9967-37), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7E8550) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of herbicide fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester [1-methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy) acetate] and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid] in or on teff, forage at 12.0 ppm; teff, grain at 0.5 ppm; teff, straw at 12.0 ppm; and teff, hay at 20.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has changed the numerical expression of the proposed tolerance values in order to conform to current Agency policy on significant figures.

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

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

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

The active ingredient used in formulating end-use herbicide products is fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester. However, since the ester form has been shown to rapidly hydrolyze to the acid form, the residues of fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester along with its fluroxypyr acid metabolite (free and conjugated), are collectively expressed as “fluroxypyr” and are therefore regulated together for tolerance enforcement. In terms of toxicity, the ester and acid forms are considered the same.

Fluroxypyr has low acute toxicity by the oral and dermal routes of exposure and moderate to mild acute toxicity by the inhalation route of exposure, based on lethality studies. Fluroxypyr is not a dermal sensitizer, nor is it irritating to the skin; however, it is a mild eye irritant.

The kidney is the target organ for fluroxypyr following oral exposure to rats, mice, and dogs. In the rat, increased kidney weight, nephrotoxicity, and death were observed in both sexes in the 90-day feeding study, and increased kidney weight and microscopic kidney lesions were observed in both sexes in the chronic study. Increased kidney weight was also observed in maternal rats in the developmental toxicity study, and kidney effects (deaths due to renal failure; increased kidney weight, and microscopic kidney lesions) were observed in both sexes in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. Although microscopic kidney lesions were observed in dogs in the 28-day feeding study, no kidney effects or other treatment related toxicity were seen in the chronic feeding study in dogs at the same doses used in the 28-day study. Microscopic kidney lesions were observed in mice following long-term exposure.

There was no evidence of increased susceptibility (quantitative/qualitative) following in utero exposure in rats and rabbits, or following pre and/or postnatal exposure in rats. Neither developmental toxicity nor reproductive toxicity was observed in rats. In rabbits, developmental toxicity was not observed following exposure to dose levels that resulted in maternal death; however, abortions were observed in rabbits following exposure to fluroxypyr at the limit dose. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in any of the studies. An immunotoxicity study in rats found no indication of immunotoxicity. Fluroxypyr is classified “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” due to lack of evidence to suggest carcinogenicity in the database, and there is no concern for its mutagenicity potential.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluroxypyr as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Fluroxypyr: Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed New Use on Teff” on pages 13-16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0225.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluroxypyr used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3328) (FRL-9371-1).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fluroxypyr, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluroxypyr tolerances in 40 CFR 180.535. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluroxypyr in food as follows:

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

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat in America” (NHANES/WWEIA) dietary survey conducted in 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues with 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all existing and proposed crop uses and default processing factors for processed commodities.

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

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for fluroxypyr. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fluroxypyr in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fluroxypyr. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluroxypyr for chronic exposures are estimated to be 540 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.055 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 540 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Fluroxypyr is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential turfgrass, golf courses, parks and sports fields. Residential handler exposure was not assessed because all the labels require the use of personal-protective equipment (PPE) and are not intended for application by homeowners.

For post-application exposure, although adults and children performing physical activities on treated turf (e.g., golfing, mowing) may receive dermal exposure to fluroxypyr residues, a quantitative risk assessment for the dermal route of exposure was not conducted since there are no toxicity findings for the short-term dermal route of exposure up to the limit dose. In addition, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not conducted because of the low acute inhalation toxicity, low vapor pressure, and the relatively low use rate.

Young children 1 to <2 years old may receive incidental oral post-application exposure to fluroxypyr from treated turf. The post-application exposures for children playing on treated turf resulting in incidental oral exposure as a result of mouthing behaviors were assessed.

Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

EPA has not found fluroxypyr to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fluroxypyr does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluroxypyr does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure in rats and rabbits or following pre and/or postnatal exposure in rats.

Fluroxypyr is neither a developmental nor a reproductive toxicant in rats. Fluroxypyr has been evaluated for potential developmental effects in the rat and rabbit (gavage administration). Maternal toxicity included death in rats and rabbits. There were no developmental effects in the rat, and while abortions were observed in the rabbit, they occurred only at the limit dose.

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

i. The toxicity database for fluroxypyr is complete.

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

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

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residue estimates and assumes 100 PCT for all commodities. This assessment will not underestimate exposure/risk. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fluroxypyr in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fluroxypyr.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

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

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to fluroxypyr from food and water will utilize 3.5% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1-year-old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of fluroxypyr is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Fluroxypyr is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fluroxypyr.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 2,500 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for fluroxypyr is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

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

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, fluroxypyr is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

Adequate GC/ECD (gas chromatography/electron-capture detection) analytical methods are available to enforce the proposed plant tolerances. The available methods for plant commodities involve extraction of fluroxypyr residues with acetone, partitioning with hexane, purification using a florisil column, and analysis of residues by GC/ECD. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

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

The Codex has not established a MRL for fluroxypyr on teff.

Therefore, tolerances are established for the combined residues of fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester [1-methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetate] and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid] in or on teff, forage at 12 ppm; teff, grain at 0.50 ppm; teff, hay at 20 ppm; and teff, straw at 12 ppm.

This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. In 1990, the EPA designated the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site for the single purpose of serving as an ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for dredged material from the deepening of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE). The disposal site served this purpose in 1990, and the EPA is now taking the administrative action of withdrawing the site from regulation and relinquishing future management of the site. The site has not been used for disposal of dredged material since 1990 because such an action would require the EPA to re-designate the disposal site for a changed purpose. The EPA has not received any requests from the dredging community to use this site since 1990. Five other open-water dredged material disposal/placement sites remain in close proximity to the mouth of Grays Harbor. These five sites remain available for use, and are not affected by this withdrawal. The ability of the USACE, the Port of Grays Harbor, and other interested parties to find suitable dredged material disposal options will not be changed by this action. Post-disposal monitoring at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site shows that the site does not have now and will not have unacceptable adverse effects on the marine environment into the future.

In 1990, the EPA designated the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site to be used for a single purpose, to receive dredged material from the deepening of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel in 1990. The site has served its intended purpose and has not been available for use since 1990. If an interested party wanted to use the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site for the ocean disposal of dredged material, the EPA would need to administratively withdraw the site, designate the site with the new purpose, and provide for public comment. Thus, the current action to remove this ODMDS from EPA regulation and management does not affect any person seeking an open-water location to dispose of suitable dredged material. In addition, post-disposal monitoring at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site, conducted by the EPA and the USACE, demonstrates that the monitoring requirements set forth in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) of 1990 have been met, and that the EPA relinquishing management of the site will not cause an unacceptable adverse impact to the marine environment. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person or entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

EPA Region 10 designated both the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site and the Southwest Navigation, or 3.9-Mile Site, on July 5, 1990, for the disposal of dredged material removed during the deepening of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel by the USACE in Grays Harbor, Washington. While the Southwest Navigation Site was designated for indefinite use, the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site was designated for the single purpose of accommodating materials from the Federal navigation channel project, which was expected to occur over a two-to-three-year period beginning in 1990. The USACE disposed of 2.8 million cubic yards of dredged material at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site in 1990, and the site has not been used for the ocean disposal of dredged material since that time.

The Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site is approximately 7.1 nautical miles (8 statute miles) offshore and west/northwest of the entrance to Grays Harbor (Figure 1). The Site is circular, with a radius of 0.40 nautical miles on a central coordinate of 46°57′ N and 124°20.06′ W. The site covers an area of approximately 0.5 square nautical miles. Water depths at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site range from 140 to 160 feet. The disposal site is characterized as being located on offshore relict gravel deposits, which contain no significant benthic fish or invertebrate communities.

In the final rule (55 FR 27634, July 5, 1990) designating the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site, the EPA stated: “EPA intends to de-designate the site after dumping at the site has been completed and monitoring indicates that the material has stabilized.” This action stated that de-designation would occur within the five years following completion of disposal and monitoring activities. The USACE conducted two post-disposal surveys of the ODMDS in 1991 and 1992 in accordance with the SMMP of 1990. The results of those two surveys did not satisfy all requirements of the SMMP. Additionally, the chemical analysis of the sediments at the disposal site at that time provided conclusive data documenting the presence of dioxins/furans and other contaminants at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site. Dioxin concentrations at the disposal site ranged from 0.49 to 1.88 [parts per trillion (pptr) dry weight TEQ (toxicity equivalent)]. These concentrations were not considered a risk to the marine environment at that time, and as a point of comparison, are well below the current marine screening level of 4 pptr dry weight TEQ, used for screening the suitability of open-water disposal of dredged material in Puget Sound today. The remote sensing data were inconclusive about the disposal mound height and areal extent. These two parameters were identified in the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site designation documents and SMMP as indicators of stabilization. The EPA determined that additional data were warranted to assess whether the disposed material from the Grays Harbor Navigation Channel Deepening Project had stabilized.

The EPA conducted a survey of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site on July 19, 2016 to assess the physical attributes of the site in preparation for formal withdrawal of the disposal site from EPA regulation and management. The main objective of the survey was to conduct a high-resolution multi-beam echo sounder survey to assess the bathymetry and surficial geology within and around the disposal site. The survey focused on characterizing sediments in and around the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site to determine whether dredged material had spread beyond the site boundaries or created a mound that could impact navigation. The survey area was rectangular, containing the ODMDS and a 500-foot buffer area.

The 2016 survey revealed a disposal mound, ranging 1 to 7 feet above ambient seafloor elevations, within the ODMDS. This mound confirmed that dredged material was disposed within the ODMDS boundaries in 1990. The survey also revealed the appearance of dredged material slightly outside the northeast portion of the ODMDS. This is likely the result of movement of sediment by near-bottom currents on the seafloor after disposal was completed. The Grays Harbor Eight Mile SMMP predicted a mound on the seafloor of 10 to 15 feet from the disposal. Since the observed mound was only 1 to 7 feet high, it is likely that the seafloor currents have suspended the disposed material and redeposited it, either off the center of the mound or beyond the boundaries of the ODMDS, over time. This redistribution of disposed material from the original mound has not caused mounding of significance beyond the disposal site boundaries, based on the bathymetric survey results.

The seafloor substrate within the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site is a mix of unconsolidated to consolidated sediments, likely ranging from mud and silts to coarse sand. The 2016 bathymetric survey indicated that the disposal mound within the ODMDS consists of softer, probably fine-grained sediments. At the peak of this mound, the sediments appear to be coarser, which may be an indication of seafloor scour or fine-grained material not settling on the seafloor but rather staying re-suspended in the water column. The grain size within the ODMDS is different from ambient grain sizes surrounding the disposal site. This is likely the result of disposal activities, and is limited to a small, discrete area within the site. Thus, any potential lasting effects on benthic infauna, or the epibenthic organisms which feed on these infauna, are negligible.

This action is an administrative procedure to formally remove the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site from regulation (40 CFR 228) and EPA management. The EPA will continue to manage the Grays Harbor Southwest Navigation Site, located 3.9 nautical miles from the mouth of Grays Harbor. The Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site that will be removed from regulation and EPA management is a circle with radius 0.40 statute miles, centered at: 46°57′ N, 124°20.06′ W, based upon the North American Datum of 1927.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA does not apply to this action because the courts have exempted the EPA's actions under the MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine. The EPA has, by policy, determined that where the preparation of NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory actions, including action under the MPRSA, is appropriate, the EPA will prepare an environmental review document. The EPA's “Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents” (63 FR 58045, October 29, 1998), sets out both the policy and procedures the EPA uses when preparing such environmental review documents. The EPA has determined that no environmental review document is necessary for withdrawal of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site.

The EPA has found no evidence that the disposal of dredged material has affected the physical, chemical, or biological attributes of the Site which would impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), nor affect marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 1389.

The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, requires Federal agencies to determine whether their actions will be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state programs. The EPA's withdrawal of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site from regulation will have no effect on the State of Washington's coastal zone because the disposal site is approximately four nautical miles seaward of the State's territorial sea and the EPA found no evidence that the disposal of dredged material has impacted the biological community, navigation safety, or ocean use inside or outside the disposal site.

The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The withdrawal from regulation of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site will have no effect on listed or threatened species or on any critical habitat. The post-disposal monitoring conducted by EPA and the USACE indicates that the site will have no physical, chemical, or biological impacts to benthic marine species.

The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This site withdrawal will not affect any historic properties. The withdrawal of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site from EPA regulation means that management of the site by the EPA will be relinquished.

This rule withdraws one designated ocean dredged material disposal site pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA and 40 CFR 228.11. This action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The EPA does not reasonably anticipate collection of information from ten or more people based on the lack of use of the site since 1990. Consequently, the direct final action is not subject to the PRA.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the rule will only have the effect of withdrawing one site that had fulfilled its stated purpose when EPA designated the site in 1990.

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the withdrawal from EPA regulation of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site will not have a direct effect on 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA consulted with tribal officials in the development of this action, particularly as it relates to potential impacts to tribal trust resources and tribal operations within the Quinault Indian Nation's Usual and Accustomed Area. The Quinault Indian Nation responded to EPA's request for Tribal Consultation on April 5, 2018, stating this action does not require government-to-government consultation.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in Section 3. Background, a. History of Disposal Sites near Grays Harbor, Washington.

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in Section 5. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews, f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

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

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends title 40, chapter I, subchapter H of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This document announces that, on March 13, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the 700 MHz interoperability testing rules contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 16-111, published at 81 FR 66830, Sept. 29, 2016. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0057. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0057, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 13, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR parts 2 and 90.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0057.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

OMB Approval Date: March 13, 2017.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, FCC Form 731.

Form Number: FCC Form 731.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,740 respondents; 22,250 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 35 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).

Total Annual Burden: 778,750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $34,465,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: Commission rules require that manufacturers of certain radio frequency (RF) equipment file FCC Form 731 to obtain approval prior to marketing their equipment. Manufacturers may then market their RF equipment based on a showing of compliance with technical standards established in the FCC Rules for each type of equipment or device operated under the applicable FCC Rule part. The following types of equipment are regulated (a) the RF equipment is regulated under certain rule sections of 47 CFR part 15 and part 18, and (b) in addition, rules governing certain RF equipment operating in the licensed services also require equipment authorization as established in the procedural rules in 47 CFR part 2. The RF equipment manufacturers comply with the information collection requirements by (a) Filing FCC Form 731 electronically with the Commission, or (b) Submitting the information to a Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB), which acts on behalf of the FCC to issue grants of certification and may issue grants more expeditiously than the FCC. The TCBs have flexibility in the format in which they require the collection of information (i) TCBs may require applicants to submit the required information in FCC Form 731 format or in another format selected by the TCB, but (ii) whatever the information collection method, the information required is governed by the procedural rules in 47 CFR part 2 and a showing of compliance with the FCC technical standards for the specific type of equipment. RF manufacturer applicants for equipment certification may also request “expedited authorization” to market their equipment by: (a) Choosing to pay the fee levied by a TCB, and (b) submitting their request to a TCB in order for expedited authorization to market. The TCB processes the RF equipment manufacturer's application as follows: (i) The TCB receives and reviews the RF manufacturer's information submission/application; and (ii) the TCB enters the information into the FCC Equipment Authorization System database using an interface that provides the TCB with the tools to issue a standardized Grant of Equipment Authorization. Whichever method the RF manufacturers choose to submit their information—via either the FCC on FCC Form 731 or the TCB, FCC Rules require that applicants supply the following data: (a) Demographic information including Grantee name and address, contact information, etc.; (b) information specific to the equipment including FCC Identifier, equipment class, technical specifications, etc.; and (c) attachments that demonstrate compliance with FCC Rules that may include any combination of the following based on the applicable Rule parts for the equipment for which authorization is requested: (1) Identification of equipment (47 CFR 2.925); (2) attestation statements that may be required for specific equipment; (3) external photos of the equipment for which authorization is requested; (4) block diagram of the device; (5) schematics; (6) test report; (7) test setup photos; (8) Users Manual; (9) Internal Photos; (10) Parts List/Tune Up Information; (11) RF Exposure Information; (12) Operational Description; (13) Cover Letters; and, (14) Software Defined Radio/Cognitive Radio Files.

In general, an applicant's submission is as follows: (a) FCC Form 731 includes approximately two pages covering the demographic and equipment identification information; and (b) applicants must supply additional documentation and other information, as described above, demonstrating conformance with FCC Rules, which may range from 100-1,000 pages. The supplemental information is essential to control potential interference to radio communications, which the FCC may use, as is necessary, to investigate complaints of harmful interference. In response to new technologies and in allocating spectrum, the Commission may establish new technical operating standards: (a) RF equipment manufacturers must meet the new standards to receive an equipment authorization, and (b) RF equipment manufacturers must still comply with the Commission's requirements in FCC Form 731 and demonstrate compliance as required by 47 CFR part 2 of FCC Rules. Thus, this information collection applies to a variety of RF equipment: (a) That is currently manufactured, (b) that may be manufactured in the future, and (c) that operates under varying technical standards. On July 8, 2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's rules for Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 04-165. The change requires that all paper filings required in 47 CFR Sections 2.913, 2.926(c), 2.929(c) and 2.929(d) of the rules are outdated and now must be filed electronically via the internet on FCC Form 731. The Commission believes that electronic filing speeds up application processing and supports the Commission in further streamlining to reduce cost and increase efficiency. Information on the procedures for electronically filing equipment authorization applications can be obtained from the Commission's rules, and from the internet at: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ea-app-info.htm.

On August, 26, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission released an Order on Reconsideration, FCC 16-111, PS Docket No. 13-87 that modified Part 2 and Part 90 of the Rules for equipment approval and Private Land Mobile Radio Services. The amended rule requires all Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers who manufacture 700 MHz narrowband equipment capable of operating on the interoperability channels to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's Interoperability Technical Standards in 90.548. The Order on Reconsideration prescribed two methods stage for showing compliance with Section 90.548 after equipment authorization application approval and before the marketing and sale of equipment capable of operating on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels. Specifically, the Commission modified Section 2.1033(c)(20) to provide that before equipment operating under 47 CFR part 90 and capable of operating on the 700 MHz interoperability channels (See 47 CFR 90.531(b)(1)) may be marketed or sold, the manufacturer thereof shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with 47 CFR 90.548 and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold.

The Commission also modified Section 90.548(c) of the Commission's rules to provide that transceivers capable of operating on the interoperability channels listed in 47 CFR 90.531(b)(1) shall not be marketed or sold until the transceiver has previously been certified for interoperability by the Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; provided, however, that this requirement is suspended if the CAP is discontinued. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold. In the alternative, manufacturers may employ their own protocol for verifying compliance with Project 25 standards and determining that their product is interoperable among vendors. In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with 47 CFR 90.548.

To effectively implement the provisions of the new Rules, no modifications to the existing FCC Form 731 Application for Equipment Authorization are required. The changes are intended to simplify the filing process, ensure equipment complies with Project 25 standards and is interoperable across vendors. The following specific methods are proposed to ensure compliance with Section 90.548 and simplify filing processes for equipment manufacturers:

(1) The Order on Reconsideration establishes that before the marketing or sale of equipment designed to operate on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels, manufacturers shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with § 90.548 and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. OMB has approved the information collections associated with P25 CAP compliance under OMB Control No. 1640-0015.1

(2) In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with § 90.548.