Federal Register Vol. 83, No.127,

Need for Corrections

The Agency published a final rule on June 3, 2016, (81 FR 35984) for the purpose of improving program delivery, clarifying the regulations to make them easier to understand, and reducing delinquencies. The Agency discovered that conforming amendments had not been included for 7 CFR part 4280 to continue to allow the Rural Energy for America Program to use procedures and forms already codified for the Guaranteed program and correctly reference revised 7 CFR part 4279. This notice makes technical corrections to include the actual language in 7 CFR part 4280 referencing language from 7 CFR part 4279 prior to amendment of such regulation in 2017, update references included in 7 CFR part 4280 to updated sections of 7 CFR part 4279, and update the title of Form RD 4280-2 from Grant Agreement to Financial Assistance Agreement, all as intended at the time of revision of 7 CFR part 4279. In addition, information on lender eligibility and credit quality is updated to bring them into conformance with the Guaranteed program and current implementation.

Accordingly, 7 CFR chapter XLII is amended by making the following correcting amendments:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs 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, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Registerexpensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs 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, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

I. Background and Statutory Authority

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 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 and toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 of the CPSIA are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards 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.

The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA 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 statute specifies 12 categories of products that are included in the definition, including various types of children's chairs. Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “booster chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product. Additionally, the Commission's regulation requiring product registration cards defines “booster seats” as a durable infant or toddler product subject to the registration card rule. 74 FR 68668 (Dec. 29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(3).

As required by section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA, the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this rule, largely through the ASTM process. On May 19, 2017, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for booster seats.1 82 FR 22925. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, without modification, developed by ASTM International, ASTM F2640-17 1, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats (ASTM F2640-17 1).

In this document, the Commission is issuing a final mandatory consumer product safety standard for booster seats. Since the NPR published, ASTM approved (April 1, 2018) and published (April, 2018) the current version of the voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM F2640-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats (ASTM F2640-18), with three changes from the previous version:

• New performance and testing requirements for a new type of booster seat that hangs from the back of an adult chair;

• Clarification of the installation position for measuring a booster seat on an adult chair; and

• New warning statement in the instructional literature to address booster seats that do not have a reclined position.

Additionally, the final rule amends the list of notices of requirements (NORs) issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for booster seats. Under section 14 of the CPSA, the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for conformity with a children's product safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds an NOR for the booster seat standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

ASTM F2640-18 defines a “booster seat” as:

Booster seats may be constructed from a wide variety of materials, including wood, plastic, fabric, metal, and/or foam. Most booster seats, notably those intended for home use, have removable trays, allowing a table to be used as an alternative eating surface. Some booster seats are intended to double as floor seats for toddlers, and others are high chair/booster seat combination products. The ASTM standard covers combination products when the product is in a booster seat configuration.

The definition of “booster seat” in ASTM F2640-18 is broad and includes within the scope of the standard booster seats that are designed specifically for use in restaurants. Several suppliers sell these “food-service” booster seats directly to restaurants or through restaurant supply companies. Consumers also may purchase some of these products directly, for example, through online third parties that act as brokers between buyers and sellers. Consequently, consumers use food-service booster seats in homes and in restaurant establishments open to the public. The Commission agrees with the scope of ASTM F2640-18, and is not excluding food-service booster seats from the final rule.

The final rule for booster seats does not cover children's seats intended for use in motor vehicles, which are also sometimes referred to as “booster seats.”

CPSC staff identified 44 domestic firms supplying booster seats to the U.S. market. Thirty-four (34) domestic firms market their booster seats exclusively to consumers, while ten (10) domestic firms sell booster seats exclusively to restaurant or restaurant supply stores (usually through regional distributors or an internal portal). Sixteen of the 34 domestic firms that sell exclusively to consumers are compliant with the current voluntary standard for booster seats. Of the 10 domestic firms selling food-service booster seats, none are compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard. Of the 44 known domestic suppliers, 29 are domestic manufacturers (10 large and 19 small), 14 are domestic importers (five large and nine small), and one is a small domestic firm whose supply source staff could not determine.3

Staff identified two foreign manufacturers selling directly to the United States. Other foreign booster seats are entering the U.S. market in a variety of ways as well. Staff found that online storefronts and online retailers, acting as brokers between buyers and sellers, are the source of a large number of booster seat products, particularly from Asia and Europe. Products purchased through these websites are sometimes shipped by the individual sellers. Often, staff cannot determine whether an online seller is located in the United States, or overseas, or whether the seller is a manufacturer, retailer, or importer, which makes it difficult for staff to categorize these companies for analysis. Staff found that European booster seats are also entering the U.S. market through foreign retailers who are willing to ship directly to the United States. Booster seats available online from foreign suppliers are less likely to be compliant with the ASTM voluntary standard.

The data discussed in this section come from CPSC's Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS), which collects data from consumer reports, medical examiners, other state and local authorities, retailer reports, newspaper clippings, death certificates, and follow-up CPSC In-Depth Investigations of reported incidents.4 From the CPSRMS, CPSC is aware of a total of 912 incidents (2 fatal and 152 nonfatal injuries) related to booster seats reported to have occurred from January 1, 2008 through October 31, 2017.5 The 912 booster seat incidents include 45 new booster seat-related incidents reported since publication of the NPR (collected between October 1, 2016 and October 31, 2017). None of the 45 newly reported incidents is a fatality. All of the newly reported incidents fall within the same hazard patterns identified in the NPR. Retailers and manufacturers reporting through the CPSC's “Retailer Reporting Program” account for 93 percent of the newly reported incidents (42 out of 45 incidents). CPSC received the remaining three incident reports from consumers using SaferProducts.gov. CPSC Field staff conducted an In-Depth Investigation on one of the newly reported incidents.

CPSC received reports of two fatalities associated with the use of a booster seat. Both incidents occurred in 2013 and were described in the NPR:

In one incident, a 22-month-old female, sitting on a booster seat attached to an adult chair, pushed off from the table and tipped the adult chair backwards into a glass panel of a china cabinet behind her. The cause of death was listed as “exsanguination due to hemorrhage from incised wound.”

In the other incident, a 4-year-old male fell from a booster seat to the floor; he seemed uninjured at the time, but later that evening while riding his bike, the child fell, became unresponsive, and later died. The cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma.

CPSC is aware of 152 booster seat nonfatal injury incidents occurring between January 1, 2008 and October 31, 2017 (146 incidents reported in the NPR and 6 newly reported incidents). A majority of these incidents involved children 18 months and younger. The severity of the injury types among the 152 reported injuries are described below:

Five children required a hospital admission. The injuries were skull fractures, concussions, and other head injuries.

Another 22 children were treated and released from a hospital emergency department (ED) for injuries resulting mostly from falls.

The remaining incidents primarily involved contusions, abrasions, and lacerations, due to falls or entrapment of limbs/extremities.

No injury occurred, or the report did not mention an injury occurring, for the remaining 758 incident reports (719 incidents reported in the NPR and 39 newly reported incidents). However, CPSC staff's review of these incident report descriptions indicates the potential for a serious injury or even death.

CPSC considered all 912 reported incidents to identify the following hazard patterns associated with booster seats:

1. Restraint/Attachment Problems (37%): 339 incidents (317 incidents reported in the NPR and 22 newly reported incidents) involved the mechanism for attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, or the restraint system that contains the child within the booster seat. Issues with the attachment mechanism included anchor buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching or releasing. Restraint-system problems included: buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and general inadequacy or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place. In 21 incident reports, staff could not determine from the report if the buckle or strap referred to in the report meant the restraint or the attachment system. In eight of the incident reports, both systems were reported to have failed. Thirty-seven injuries (all reported in the NPR) are included in this category, of which seven were treated at a hospital ED.

2. Seat-Related Issues (28%): 255 incidents (254 incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incident) involved seat-related issues. These incidents included failure of the lock/latch that controls the seat-recline function; tearing, cracking, and/or peeling seat pads; detaching seat backs; failure of seat height adjustment lock/latches; and seats detaching from the base of certain models. Twenty-two injuries are included in this category: Three resulting in hospitalization and five ED-treated injuries. The newly reported incident involved the booster seatback detaching altogether, allowing the child to fall and sustain multiple skull fractures, requiring hospitalization.

3. Tray-Related Issues (21%): 189 incidents (171 incidents reported in the NPR and 18 newly reported incidents) involved issues related to booster seat trays. These incidents included tray paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the underside, trays too tight/difficult to release, and trays pinching fingers. These incidents also included complaints about broken toy accessories, which are usually attached to the tray (or tray insert). Thirty-eight injuries are included in this category, including one that required ED treatment.

4. Design Problems (3.8%): 35 incidents (33 discussed in the NPR and 2 newly reported) involved a potential entrapment hazard due to the design of the booster seat. Most of these incidents involved limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between the passive crotch-restraint bar and the seat/tray, between the tray inserts, or in toy accessories. Sixteen injuries were included in this category, two requiring ED treatment.

5. Stability-Related Issues (3.4%): 31 incidents, discussed in the NPR, involved booster seat stability. Most of these incidents (27 of 31) concerned the adult chair to which the booster seat was attached tipping back or tipping over. Some of these incidents resulted from the child pushing back from the table or counter. Twenty-two injuries (including two hospitalizations and five ED-treated injuries) and one fatality are included in this category.

6. Armrest Problems (2.6%): 24 incidents, discussed in the NPR, involved booster seat armrests cracking or breaking. In a few cases, the armrest reportedly arrived broken inside the booster seat packaging. One injury is included in this category.

7. Miscellaneous Product Issues (1.9%): 17 miscellaneous incidents (16 incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incidents) involved a variety of product-related issues, including unclear assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surface, rough edges, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. One incident report alleged that the poor design of the booster seat failed to contain/support the child and led to a fall injury. Ten injuries were included in this category, including two ED-treated injuries.

8. Combination of Multiple Issues (1.9%): 17 incidents, discussed in the NPR, involved a combination of the product hazards listed above. Four injuries were included in this category.

9. Unknown Issues (0.5%): Five incidents involved unknown issues (4 incidents reported in the NPR and 1 newly reported incident). In these incidents, CPSC staff had insufficient information to determine how the incidents occurred. One incident in this category, a fatality, reported confounding factors that likely contributed to the death. Two other injuries were reported in this category, including a fall injury.

The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a statistically valid injury surveillance system,6 is the source of the injury estimates discussed in this section. Since the NPR, new ED-treated injury data have become available for 2016. However, the estimates for 2016 are not reportable per NEISS publication criteria.7 As such, the Commission presents the injury estimates and injury characteristics for the aggregate data from 2008 through 2016.

CPSC staff estimates a total of 12,000 injuries (sample size = 455, coefficient of variation = 0.10) related to booster seats were treated in U.S. hospital EDs over the 9-year period from 2008 through 2016. NEISS data for 2017 is not complete at this point in time. Similar to 2016, staff cannot report injury estimates for some of the other individual years because of the NEISS publication criteria. Note, however, that staff did not observe any trend over the 9-year period regarding injuries increasing or decreasing.

No deaths were reported through the NEISS. About 64 percent of the injured were younger than 2 years of age; among the remaining, 24 percent, 8 percent, and 4 percent were 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, and 4-year-olds, respectively. For the ED-treated injuries related to booster seats reported in the 9-year period, the following characteristics occurred most frequently:

• Hazard—falls out of the booster seat (97 percent). Most of the falls were due to:

○ Unspecified circumstances (55 percent).

○ Unspecified tip overs (18 percent); tip overs due to child pushing back or rocking in seat (6 percent).

○ Booster seat attachment or child-restraint mechanism failure/defeat/non-use (8 percent).

• Injured body part—head (58 percent), face (22 percent), and mouth (7 percent).

• Injury type—internal organ injury (40 percent), lacerations (24 percent), and contusions/abrasions (19 percent).

• Disposition—treated and released (about 98 percent).

Incidents in a Restaurant Setting. For the NPR, CPSC staff noted that although most of the incidents occurred in home settings, one incident report explicitly mentioned a restaurant where an infant was using a booster seat provided by the establishment. Among the new incidents that staff analyzed, none occurred at a restaurant.

Among the NEISS ED-treated injury data, from 2008 to 2016, 31 injury reports explicitly mentioned that the injury occurred in a restaurant setting. Although these 31 reports are included in the larger sample that yielded the total estimated number of injuries of 12,000, a national injury estimate for restaurant injuries only does not meet the NEISS publication criteria and is not presented here. Staff reviewed the injury characteristics in these reports, which indicated that all of the injuries resulted from falls, but the circumstances were unspecified for the most part. Staff cannot discern from the injury reports whether the booster seats involved were provided by the establishment.

Compliance staff reviewed recalls of booster seats that occurred from January 1, 2008 to May 30, 2018. During that time, two consumer-level recalls involved booster seats. Both recalls involved a fall hazard. One recalled product was associated with a fall hazard when the stitching on the booster seat's restraint straps loosened, allowing the straps to separate from the seat and the child to fall out of the seat. Another recall involved the booster seat restraint buckle, which opened unexpectedly, allowing a child to fall from the chair and be injured.

The voluntary standard for booster seats, ASTM F2640, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats, is intended to minimize the risk of injury or death to infants in booster seats associated with falls from booster seats, tipping over or out of booster seats, restraint disengagement or lack of a restraint system, tray disengagement, booster seats stability while attached to an adult chair, entrapments in booster seats, and other hazards such as cuts, bruises, and lacerations. ASTM F2640 was first approved and published in 2007, as ASTM F2640-07, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Booster Seats. ASTM has since revised the voluntary standard 11 times. Tab C of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package includes a description of each revision through 2018.

The current version of the standard, ASTM F2640-18, was approved on April 1, 2018, and published in April 2018. ASTM F2640-18 includes three changes from the version of the standard proposed in the NPR, ASTM F2640-17 1:

• New performance and testing requirements for a new type of booster seat that hangs from the back of an adult chair;

• Clarification of the installation position for measuring a booster seat on an adult chair; and

• New warning statement in Instructional Literature to address booster seats that do not have a recline position.

In section IV.C below, we describe and assess each change.

ASTM F2640-18 includes these key provisions: Scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.

Scope. This section describes what constitutes a “booster seat.” As stated in section II.A. of this preamble, the Scope section describes a booster seat as “a juvenile chair, which is placed on an adult chair to elevate a child to standard dining table height.” The description further specifies appropriate ages for children using a booster seat, stating, a “booster seat is made for the purpose of containing a child, up to 5 years of age, and normally for the purposes of feeding or eating.”

Terminology. This section defines terms specific to this standard.

General Requirements. This section addresses numerous hazards with several general requirements; most of these general requirements are also found in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. The general requirements included in this section are:

Sharp points or edges;

Small parts;

Wood parts;

Lead in paint;

Scissoring, shearing, and pinching;

Openings;

Exposed coil springs;

Protective components;

Labeling; and

Toys.

Performance Requirements and Test Methods. These sections contain performance requirements specific to booster seats (discussed here) and the required test methods to assess conformity with such requirements.

Tray impact test: This test assesses the tray's resistance to breaking into small pieces or creating sharp points/edges when dropped from a specified height.

Tray engagement test: This test assesses the tray's ability to remain engaged to the booster seat when subjected to a specified force horizontally and vertically.

Static load test: This test assesses whether the booster seat can support its maximum recommended weight, by gradually applying a static load on the center of the seating surface for a specified amount of time.

Restraint system test: This test assesses whether the restraint system can secure a child in the manufacturer's recommended-use positions.

Seat attachment test: This test specifies that a booster seat must have a means of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair and assesses the booster seat's ability to remain fastened to the adult chair when force is applied.

Structural integrity (dynamic load): This requirement assesses the durability of the booster seat, including locking/latching devices which prevent folding or adjustment of the booster seat.

Maximum booster seat dimensions: This requirement assesses how large a booster seat can be in relation to the adult chair dimensions specified on the booster seat's packaging.

Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements related to warnings, labeling, and required markings for booster seats, and it prescribes various substance, format, and prominence requirements for this information.

Instructional Literature. This section requires that easily readable and understandable instructions be provided with booster seats. Additionally, the section contains requirements related to instructional literature contents and format.

CPSC staff identified 912 incidents (including two fatalities) related to the use of booster seats. CPSC staff examined the incident data, identified hazard patterns in the data, and worked with ASTM to develop and update the performance requirements in ASTM F2640. The incident data and identified hazard patterns formed the basis for ASTM to develop ASTM F2640-18 with CPSC staff's support throughout the process.8 The following section discusses how each of the identified product-related issues or hazard patterns listed in section III.C. of this preamble is addressed by the current voluntary standard, and it also describes and assesses each of the three changes included in ASTM F2640-18.

Restraint system and attachment problems included buckles/prongs breaking, jamming, releasing too easily, or separating from straps; straps tearing or fraying, pinching, or coming undone; and inadequacy or ineffectiveness of restraints in containing the child in place, Similarly, complaints about the seat attachment system involved anchor buckles/clasps/straps breaking, tearing, fraying, detaching, or releasing. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the attachment and restraint system tests in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes that these tests adequately address the identified hazards.

Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640-18 requires that a booster seat must have a means of “attaching” to an adult chair, and be able to withstand a specified force without becoming detached from the adult chair. Booster seats may employ several methods to secure to an adult chair, including straps, suction, and anti-skid bottoms or grip feet that minimize slippage on the chair by means of friction. However, because “grip feet” and “friction bottoms” do not actually attach (i.e., fasten) the booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM standard does not consider these to be a means of securing or attaching booster seats to an adult chair. The Commission agrees. Conversely, because suction physically fastens the booster seat to an adult chair, the ASTM standard considers suction to be a means of attachment under Section 6.5 of the current ASTM standard. The Commission agrees with this as well. Accordingly, the final rule requires any booster seat using suction as a means of attachment to pass the attachment test to be compliant.

Seat-related issues included failure of the lock/latch that controls the seat-recline function; seat pads tearing, cracking, and/or peeling; seat backs detaching altogether; seat height adjustment lock/latch failures; and seat detachment from the base that is available for certain models. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the static load and dynamic booster seat tests in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes that these tests adequately address these hazards.

Tray-related issues included trays with paint finish peeling off, trays failing to lock/stay locked, trays with sharp protrusions on the underside, trays that were too tight/difficult to release, and trays pinching fingers. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the standard, and concludes that the general requirements section of F2640-18 adequately addresses peeling paint, sharp protrusions, and pinching hazards, and the standard's tray engagement test adequately address the tray locking failures.

Booster seat design problems resulted in limbs, fingers, and toes entrapped in spaces/openings between the armrest and seat back/tray, between a passive crotch restraint bar and seat/tray, between tray inserts, or in toy accessories. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the general requirements of ASTM 2640-18 (namely requirements relating to scissoring, shearing, and pinching, openings, and toys) and concludes that the ASTM standard adequately addresses the identified hazards.

Stability-related incidents included instances where the adult chair, to which the booster seat was attached, tipped back or tipped over. Addressing the stability of the booster seat while attached to an adult chair is difficult in a standard for booster seats because stability depends on the adult chair. The ASTM booster seat subcommittee and CPSC staff worked diligently to find an effective requirement to adequately address stability without specifying requirements for the adult chair. Although ASTM F2640-18 does not contain a performance requirement to address this hazard, it does contain a labeling provision, requiring that booster seats must contain a cautionary statement: “Never allow a child to push away from table.” Moreover, ASTM F2640-18 requires a booster seat to identify on the booster seat packaging the size of adult chair on which the booster seat can fit, thereby allowing consumers to make a more informed purchasing choice.

Armrest problems included booster seat armrests cracking, and in a few cases, the armrest arriving to the consumer broken in the packaging. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the static and dynamic load tests contained in ASTM F2640-18, and concludes that those tests adequately address armrest-related hazards.

Miscellaneous product-related issues included unclear assembly instructions, poor quality construction, odor, rough surfaces, breakage, or loose hardware at unspecified sites. The Commission has reviewed CPSC staff's evaluation of the general requirements section, as well as the instructional literature requirements of ASTM F2640-18, and concludes that those requirements adequately address this hazard.

Below we describe each of the three changes in the voluntary standard since publication of the NPR, as reflected in ASTM F2640-18. The Commission finds that each of these requirements enhances the safety of booster seats and strengthens the standard incorporated as the final rule for booster seats.

The new style of booster seat attaches to the adult chair fundamentally differently than typical booster seats. This new design can fold and is marketed as a travel booster seat. Typical booster seats are placed on the seat of the chair and usually attached to the seat and back with straps. Thus, the typical booster seat rests on the chair seat and the adult chair seat bears all of the booster seat's weight. The new style of booster seat has a frame that hangs over the top of the adult chair seat back, usually with umbrella style hooks, and has feet that rest on the seat of the adult chair. The child's seating area is attached to the frame. Tab C of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package contains a picture of this design.

Section 6.7 of ASTM F2640-18 addresses this style of booster seat and has two requirements. The first requirement states that, when in all manufacturer's recommended use positions, the booster seat must not tilt forward more than 10 degrees from the horizontal. This requirement was added because a seat that is tilted forward too far may result in a child falling out of the seat. The second requirement states that the backrest support contact must contact the top of the adult chair backrest and extend over and below the top rear edge of the adult chair backrest. This requirement was added to ensure that the booster seat is reasonably secure to the adult chair backrest so that the booster seat does not fall off the adult chair.

Section 6.8 of ASTM F2640-18 addresses the maximum booster seat dimensions. The previous version, ASTM F2640-17 1, also had a section addressing maximum dimensions, but it did not include requirements for the new, over-the-backrest-style booster seats. The latest version incorporates the previous requirements, but it also includes the requirements specific to this new style of booster seat.

Section 7.10.1.1 of ASTM F2640-18 explains how to measure the maximum booster seat dimension for both traditional and over-the-backrest style booster seats and includes a diagram of a test fixture to be used for over-the-backrest seats and a diagram of their proper installation. This test protocol was added to provide clarity and ensure that testing labs are performing the tests consistently.

Section 9 (Instructional Literature) of F2640-18 contains a new requirement, Section 9.5, stating that if the booster seat has no recline feature, the instructions shall contain a statement addressing that the product is only for children capable of sitting upright unassisted.

The Commission is aware of one international voluntary standard pertaining to booster seats, BS EN16120 Child Use and Care Articles—Chair Mounted Seat. CPSC staff compared the performance requirements of ASTM F2640-18 to the performance requirements of BS EN16120, which is intended for a similar product category, and identified several differences. Primarily, the scope of ASTM F2640-18 includes products intended for children up to 5 years of age, while EN 16120 is intended for products up to an age of 36 months, or a maximum weight of 15 kg (33 lbs.).

Staff found that some individual requirements in the BS EN16120 standard are more stringent than ASTM F2640-18. For example, BS EN16120 includes requirements for head entrapment, lateral protection, surface chemicals, cords/ribbons, material shrinkage, packaging film, and monofilament threads. Staff did not identify any hazard patterns in CPSC's incident data that such provisions could address. Conversely, some individual requirements in ASTM F2640-18 are more stringent than those found in EN 16120. For example, ASTM F2640-18 includes requirements for tray performance and toy accessories. Currently, CPSC is not aware of any technically feasible method to test for the most prevalent and dangerous hazard pattern, falls resulting from tipping over in an adult chair. However, CPSC staff will continue to monitor hazard patterns and recommend future changes to the Commission, if necessary.

CPSC received eight comments on the NPR. Four commenters generally supported the NPR. Two commenters requested that CPSC wait to finalize the rule to include the next version of the voluntary standard, which would include two open ASTM ballot items, including a new booster seat design that attaches to an adult chair by hooking over the top back of the chair. Two commenters stated that booster seats manufactured for food-service establishments should be exempt from the mandatory standard, or be subject to a different standard. Below we summarize and respond to each significant issue raised by the commenters.

Comment 1: Two commenters stated that the Commission should not issue a final rule until ASTM approves the next version of ASTM F2640. The commenters stated that the 2018 version would clarify the intent of the maximum booster seat dimension test and would address the new hook on booster seat design.

Response 1: The Commission agrees with these commenters. The final rule incorporates by reference the latest version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-18.

Comment 2: Two manufacturer commenters contended that food-service booster seats should not be covered under ASTM F2640, with one commenter proposing that a separate commercial standard be developed. These commenters stated that food-service booster seats have simple designs intended solely to be positioned easily alongside a dining table, and raised to a height for a child to eat. Commenters noted several elements that make food-service booster seats different from home-use booster seats, including: (1) Less-confined designs to accommodate bulky outerwear; (2) generally smaller size; (3) tray-less; (4) not adjustable (no swiveling or reclining); and (5) typically use attachment methods like anti-skid pads or raised rubber feet that can accommodate restaurant seating, such as booths and benches, which belts and straps cannot.

One manufacturer-commenter noted that the level of supervision over children in restaurants is greater than in homes, where children may be left unattended while eating. The commenter stated that this makes food-service booster seat designs, which are completely appropriate for restaurant use, potentially risky in home settings. Rather than addressing this under the current regulation, however, the commenter suggested a separate regulation for food-service booster seats that focuses on elements that ensure proper use, such as more stringent warnings and instructional literature (in particular not using food-service booster seats outside of commercial settings, and not leaving children unsupervised during use), as well as educating end users and wait staff.

Consumer advocate-commenters agreed with the NPR that food-service booster seats should be included under the mandatory standard because these products are available for sale to consumers and consumers use the products in restaurants, and these products should provide the same measure of safety.

Response 2: The Commission recognized in the NPR that food-service booster seats vary in design and where they will be used, and that the attachment requirement in ASTM F2640 may require a design change for some food-service booster seats. Accordingly, the NPR invited commenters to provide information on the effects of making ASTM F2640-17 1's attachment requirements mandatory on booster seats that currently use grip feet/friction bottoms to secure the booster to the surface upon which it sits. Additionally, the NPR solicited comments regarding the capability of suction cups to comply with performance requirements.

Although the Commission agrees that some differences exist between food-service booster seats and booster seats intended for home-use, the commenters did not provide sufficient, specific information to support the assertion that food-service booster seats should not be covered under ASTM F2640; nor did they provide cost estimates for varying designs, other than generally stating that the process of compliance would be costly and time intensive. Accordingly, despite CPSC staff's interviews with affected parties, and after careful review of the comments, the Commission has not identified any inherent differences between the two products that would prevent food-service booster seats from meeting the mandatory standard and remaining fundamentally the same product. For example, although no food-service booster seats have trays, trays are not required to meet the booster seat final rule. If a booster seat does not have a tray, the requirements, tests, warnings, and instructions related to trays are not required. As another example, although it is true that anti-skid pads and raised rubber feet would not be considered attachment methods under the mandatory standard, they may still be used in addition to an attachment method like a belt, strap, or suction cup. Food-service booster seats can likely meet the new standard by adding a belt, for example, while retaining the anti-slip mechanism they were using already.

Section 6.5 of ASTM F2640 (2017 1 and 2018 versions) requires a mechanism of attaching a booster seat to an adult chair, but it does not require the attachment mechanism to be a strap. Although a strap attachment would not work on a bench or booth, non-strap attachment methods, such as suction cups, could be used to secure a booster to a bench. Additionally, ASTM F2640 does not state any specific requirements for booster seats used on a booth or bench-type seating. Under the standard, booster seats are tested on an adult chair. The standard requires the attachment method to withstand force requirements. Although “grip feet” or “friction bottoms” are not a sufficient means of fastening a booster seat to an adult chair, some suction cups can be sufficient to withstand the force required in the standard.

Based on the foregoing, the Commission rejects the assertion that food-service booster seats should solely rely on warnings to prevent falls in food-service booster seats. In a food-service environment, booster seats are used on adult chairs and bench-style seating. Adhering to the mandatory standard for booster seats will ensure that food-service booster seats remain attached to adult chairs under the testing protocol, but not impede using grip feet on bench seating, if that is how manufacturers choose to address this issue. Additionally, nothing in the final rule would prevent food-service booster seat suppliers from providing additional warnings and instructions, if they believe such information will improve the safety their products.

Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate a booster seat standard that is either “substantially the same as” the voluntary standard or “more stringent than” the voluntary standard if the more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Accordingly, CPSC's mandatory standard could only provide requirements for food-service booster seats that differ from the ASTM standard, if those different requirements strengthen the standard and further reduce the risk of injury. The commenters have not provided any safety rationale for excluding food-service booster seats from the final rule. None of the suggestions presented by commenters would result in a standard that is “more stringent than” the voluntary standard. Therefore, the Commission is not modifying the booster seat requirements for food-service booster seats as part of the mandatory standard. However, as explained below, in response to Comment 6, the final rule provides additional time to comply with the new standard.

Comment 3: One commenter stated that to comply with the standard, booster seats using suction as a means of attachment should be required to pass the attachment test in ASTM F2640-17 1.

Response 3: The Commission agrees that regardless of the means of attachment, all booster seats must meet the requirements in section 6.5 of the current voluntary standard, ASTM F2640-18. These requirements include: Not allowing the booster seat to fall off the adult chair and break, and remaining functional after applying a 45-pound force horizontally to the center of the front of the booster seat five times. The requirements do not prescribe how the seat should be attached to the adult chair.

Comment 4: One commenter questioned the applicability of placing warning labels on commercial booster seats because of size constraints on restaurant style-booster seats. The commenter indicated that the distance from the seat surface to the top of the side walls of the seat range from 3 inches to 5 inches, which restricts the space for labeling, and requests conspicuous labeling to include the seat surface.

Response 4: The most recent version of the voluntary standard applicable to booster seats, ASTM F2640-18, requires the warning label to be conspicuous. A “conspicuous label” is defined in the standard as a “label which is visible, when the product is in the manufacturer's recommended use position, to a person standing at the sides or front of the booster seat” (ASTM F2640-18, section 3.1.1). Accordingly, the definition of “conspicuous” in the standard does not preclude use of the seat surface for the warning label placement, because the seat surface is visible to a person standing at the sides or front of the booster seat.

Additionally, to address comments that a side wall height range of 3 inches to 5 inches would restrict warning placement, staff generated mock warning labels that meet the ASTM F2640-18 requirement for signal word and font size in section 8.4.5. Tab B of Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package provides pictures of these mock warning labels. Staff's mock-ups show that the label can be placed on products with limited side wall space. Accordingly, manufacturers have the flexibility to place the warning label on seat surface or on the seat vertical wall.

Comment 5: One commenter urged CPSC to work with manufacturers to use design and visual cues, such as pictograms, to ensure warnings are conveyed effectively to those with limited or no English literacy.

Response 5: The Commission acknowledges that well-designed graphics, such as pictograms, can be useful for consumers with limited or no English literacy. However, the design of effective graphics can be difficult. Some seemingly obvious graphics are poorly understood and can give rise to interpretations that are the opposite of the intended meaning (so-called “critical confusions”). To avoid confusion, a warning pictogram should be developed with an empirical study and should also be well-tested on the target audience. Thus far, pictograms have not been developed for booster-seat warning labels. In the future, if CPSC staff advises that graphic symbols are needed to reduce the risk of injury associated with these products, the Commission can consider updating the mandatory standard to include pictograms.

Comment 6: The Commission received four comments on CPSC's proposed 12-month effective date for the booster seats mandatory standard. One comment, submitted by three consumer advocacy groups, supported a 6-month effective date (which they seem to believe mistakenly was the Commission's proposal). Two commenters, a juvenile product manufacturers' association and a private citizen, supported the proposed 12-month effective date, although the private citizen said that they would also support an even longer effective date to reduce the economic impact on small firms. A fourth commenter, a small manufacturer of food-service booster seats, suggested a 2-year effective date to allow additional time for product development. The commenter stated: “compliance may require the costly and time intensive process of developing and building new tooling to comply with the Standard.”

In a follow-up call with Commission staff (a phone log is in regulations.gov), the fourth commenter elaborated on the request for a 2-year effective date, stating that for their booster seats to come into compliance with the revised ASTM standard, they will need to design and test new plastic molds. Creating a new mold includes researching and developing a new design, initial tool-building to implement the design, and then testing the resulting product. The commenter stated that the entire process takes longer for firms like theirs because their mold-maker is located overseas. Consequently, if changes to the mold are required after testing the new product, the turnaround time is longer than if all the work were conducted in the United States. According to the commenter, if the design process goes perfectly, with no required changes, then their booster seats could be redesigned in time to meet the 12-month effective date. The commenter stated that the request for a 2-year effective date was based on the design process for plastic molds and the potential need to create and test several iterative designs.

Response 6: The Commission recognizes that longer effective dates minimize the impact on affected firms. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) found that a significant economic impact could not be ruled out for 69 percent of the small firms operating in the U.S. market. Staff advised that many of those firms might not be aware of the ASTM voluntary standard or the CPSC booster seats rulemaking, particularly food-service booster seat suppliers, which make up one-third of the small suppliers for which a significant impact could not be ruled out. The information supplied by the fourth commenter on the time and cost involved in designing and producing new plastic molds is consistent with information supplied by CPSC engineers, as is the longer time frame required for firms conducting some of their redesign overseas. Staff engineers have also indicated that foam products would require new molds as well, which likely require similar cost and time investments.

Based on this information, the Commission concludes that a 12-month effective date likely represents a “best-case” scenario for many affected firms, and that 2 years likely represents a “worst-case” scenario for firms required to come into compliance. Firms designing and/or testing their molds in the United States should be able to meet shorter timelines, both in “best-case” and “worst-case” scenarios. After considering the information provided by commenters, the Commission is providing an 18-month effective date for all firms to come into compliance with the final rule. An 18-month effective date balances the need for improved consumer safety, with reducing the impact of the final rule on small firms.

Although some firms using molds may require iterative designs to meet the standard, the 2-year time estimate for product redesign using molds applies in cases where a mold must be modified several times, and the mold-redesign work is conducted overseas. Not all firms use molds, not all firms have molds made overseas, and not all firms will encounter sufficient difficulty with their molds to require a full 2 years to make their iterative changes. Additionally, not all products will require a full redesign. Some products already meet the ASTM voluntary standard and the anticipated product modifications (straps and/or more secure means of attachment) in those cases are not complex and should not fall within the “worst-case” scenario of a 2-year design process.

Moreover, providing additional time for firms to come into compliance reduces burden by allowing firms the time: (1) To spread out design and testing costs over a longer period; (2) to come into compliance if they are currently unaware of the voluntary standard or the rulemaking; and (3) to redesign a plastic or foam product to accommodate the design, tooling, and testing adjustments that may be required during the product redesign process.

As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that ASTM F2640-18 adequately addresses the hazards associated with booster seats. Thus, the final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2640-18, without modification, as the mandatory safety standard for booster seats.

The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3). The Safety Standard for Booster Seats, to be codified at 16 CFR part 1237, is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.

The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). Part 1112 became effective on June 10, 2013 and establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule, in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the Commission published part 1112, such as the safety standard for booster seats, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the safety standard for booster seats in the list of other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs.

Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for booster seats are required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1237, Safety Standard for Booster Seats, included in its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

Section 1237.2 of the final rule provides that booster seats must comply with applicable sections of ASTM F2640-18. The OFR has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the rule the way in which materials that the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons, and how interested parties can obtain the materials. Additionally, the preamble to the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in section IV of this preamble summarizes the required provisions of ASTM F2640-18. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F2640-18 from ASTM, either through ASTM's website, or by mail at the address provided in the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have “read-only” access to ASTM F2640-17 1 during the NPR's comment period.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Typically, the Commission provides a 6-month effective date for final rules issued for durable infant or toddler products under section 104 of the CPSIA. However, in the NPR, the Commission proposed that the booster seat rule be effective 12 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, to allow booster seat manufacturers additional time to bring their products into compliance.

CPSC received several comments on the effective date of the final rule, which are summarized in section V of this preamble, comment 6. As explained there, the remolding process for plastic and foam booster seats could take in “best-case scenarios” 12 months, but in “worst-case scenarios” the process could take up to 2 years. Recognizing that worst-case scenarios are likely to be rare, the Commission is providing an 18-month effective date for the final rule. Moreover, as explained in the next section of the preamble, the additional time reduces the impact of the rule on small businesses.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For booster seats, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 19 of the 29 (66 percent) known small domestic suppliers of booster seats to the U.S. market. Accordingly, staff prepared a FRFA that is available at Tab D of the Staff's Final Rule Briefing Package. We provide a summary of the FRFA below.

The Commission is aware of 29 small firms, including 19 domestic manufacturers, nine domestic importers, and one firm of unknown type, currently marketing booster seats in the United States. The Commission concludes that it is unlikely that there would be a significant economic impact on the eight small manufacturers and two small importers of booster seats that comply with the current voluntary standard for Juvenile Products Manufacturer's Association-(JPMA) testing purposes, ASTM F2640-17 1.10 However, the Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for 19 of the suppliers of noncompliant booster seats (11 manufacturers, seven importers, and one unknown type).

Section II.A of this preamble defines “booster seats” and discussed booster seat combination products. The final rule would cover these products when they are in their booster seat configuration. Some suppliers produce booster seats intended predominately for restaurant use. As discussed in sections II.A and V (comment 2), the Commission will include food-service booster seats in the final rule with the same requirements as home-use booster seats. The prices for food-service and home-use booster seats are similar, averaging $44 to $60. Not surprisingly, combination high chair/booster seat products tend to be more expensive, ranging in price from $50 to $250.

All booster seats manufactured after the final rule's effective date must meet the requirements of the final rule (ASTM F2640-18 with no modification). They will also need to be third party tested, as described below.

Under section 14 of the CPSA, once the new booster seat requirements become effective as a consumer product safety standard, all suppliers will be subject to the third party testing and certification requirements under the CPSA and the Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification rule (16 CFR part 1107) (1107 rule), which require manufacturers and importers to certify that their products comply with the applicable children's product safety standards, based on third party testing, and subject their products to third party testing periodically. Third party testing costs are in addition to the costs of modifying the booster seats to meet the standard. For booster seats, the third party testing costs are expected to be $500 to $1,000 per sample tested, with the higher cost being more applicable to the smallest suppliers.11 As the component part testing rule allows (16 CFR part 1109), importers may rely upon third party tests obtained by their suppliers, which could reduce the impact on importers. The incremental costs would also be lower for suppliers of compliant booster seats if they are already obtaining third party tests to assure conformance with the voluntary standard.

The IRFA requested public feedback on three questions:

1. What actions might firms take to bring their booster seats into compliance with the proposed rule? What costs might be associated with those actions?

2. What are the differences between food-service and home-use booster seats and their typical use environments (restaurants and homes)? How might the safety risks vary between the two use environments? Are there any alternative requirements that might address these risk variations and make booster seats safer in both use environments?

3. What is the appropriate effective date for the proposed rule?

CPSC did not receive public comment in response to question one. CPSC did receive comments on questions 2 and 3. Comment summaries and the Commission's responses appear in section V of this preamble.

The market for booster seats was outlined in section II.B. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of booster seats is considered small if it has 500 or fewer employees; and importers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees. CPSC limited its regulatory flexibility analysis to domestic firms because SBA guidelines and definitions pertain to U.S.-based entities. Based on these guidelines, 29 of 44 domestic firms are small—19 domestic manufacturers, 9 domestic importers, and 1 domestic firm whose supply source could not be categorized. Additional small domestic booster seat suppliers may be operating in the U.S. market, possibly including some of the firms operating online storefronts. As discussed in the FRFA, staff expects impacts of the final rule to be small for online suppliers that staff could not readily identify as domestic; therefore, they are not included in the analysis.

Of the 19 small manufacturers, eight produce booster seats that comply with the ASTM voluntary standard currently in effect for testing purposes (ASTM F2640-17 1).12 13 ASTM F2640-18, the version of the voluntary standard upon which the final rule is based, for JPMA certification testing purposes, will be in effect in November 2018. The new version of the standard (ASTM F2640-18) addresses booster seats that hang from the back of the adult chair and ensures that the maximum booster seat dimensions test is performed while in the manufacturer's recommended installation configuration. In general, the Commission expects that small manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with the voluntary standard currently in effect for testing purposes will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as it evolves, because they follow, and in five cases, actively participate in, the development of the ASTM voluntary standard. Therefore, for these small manufacturers, compliance with the voluntary standard is part of an established business practice. As such, the Commission does not expect the final rule to have a significant impact on any of the eight small manufacturers with booster seats expected to meet the requirements of the voluntary standard. Additionally, because these firms already test to the ASTM standard, the Commission expects that any third party testing costs will be minimal.

Eleven small manufacturers produce booster seats that do not comply with the voluntary standard, five of which produce food-service booster seats, and six that produce booster seats for home use. CPSC staff cannot determine the extent of the changes and the cost of the changes required for the booster seats of these 11 firms to come into compliance with the final rule. For all 11 small manufacturing firms producing booster seats that do not meet the voluntary standard, the cost of redesigning the products could exceed 1 percent of the firm's revenue. Overall, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact on any of the 11 small manufacturers producing noncompliant booster seats. Additionally, of 11 firms, staff estimates that the impact of third party testing could result in significant costs for six firms.

Staff identified two booster seat importers currently in compliance with the voluntary standard. Staff expects that small importers, like manufacturers whose booster seats already comply with the voluntary standard currently in effect for testing purposes, will remain compliant with the voluntary standard as it evolves, because these small importers follow the standard development process. Therefore, these firms are likely already to be in compliance, and the final rule should not have a significant impact on either of the small importers with compliant booster seats. Any third party testing costs for importers of compliant booster seats would be limited to the incremental costs associated with third party testing beyond their current testing regime. Staff does not expect significant impacts to result from incremental testing costs.

Staff does not have sufficient information to rule out a significant impact from the final rule for any of the seven importers with noncompliant booster seats. The economic impact on importers depends on the extent of the changes required to come into compliance and the responses of their supplying firms, which staff cannot generally determine for noncompliant importers. Third party testing and certification to the final rule could impose significant costs for three of the seven firms with booster seats believed not to comply with the ASTM standard. However, third party testing costs are unlikely to be greater than 1 percent of the firms' gross revenues for the remaining four firms.

For one firm identified as a supplier of noncompliant booster seats in the U.S. market, staff is unable to determine whether the firm is a manufacturer or an importer, and thus, staff does not have sufficient information to rule out the possibility that modifications required to come into compliance with the rule could result in a significant impact (i.e., greater than 1 percent of revenues) on this small noncompliant firm.

The Commission is aware of 29 small firms, including 19 domestic manufacturers, nine domestic importers, and one firm of unknown type, currently marketing booster seats in the United States. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that it is unlikely that there would be a significant economic impact on the eight small manufacturers and two small importers of compliant booster seats. However, the Commission cannot rule out a significant economic impact for any of the 19 suppliers of noncompliant booster seats (11 manufacturers, seven importers, and one unknown type).

The NPR proposed an effective date 12 months after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. CPSC received two comments requesting a later effective date, including one from a food-service booster seat manufacturer who requested a 2-year effective date, stating they needed more time to develop and build the new tooling that would be required to meet the mandatory standard. As discussed in sections V (comment 6) and IX of this preamble, the Commission agrees that a later effective date would reduce the economic impact of the final rule on firms. Firms would have more time to adjust their designs and tooling and thus, less likely to experience a lapse in production/importation, which could result if they were unable to produce or locate suppliers within the required timeframe. Additionally, firms could spread these costs of compliance over a longer time period, thereby reducing their annual costs, as well as the present value of their total costs. To help reduce the impact on all small firms, as well as specifically reduce the potential burden on firms using molds that may require iterative designs to meet the standard, particularly where some work is conducted overseas, the final rule provides an 18-month effective date.

In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, all children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule must be tested by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing laboratory) for compliance with applicable children's product safety rules. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet the notice of requirements (NOR) pertaining to third party conformity testing. NORs have been codified for existing rules at 16 CFR part 1112 (1112 rule). Consequently, the Commission will amend the 1112 rule to establish the NOR for testing laboratories that want accreditation to test for compliance with the booster seats final rule. This section assesses the impact of the amendment on small laboratories.

The Commission certified in the NPR that the proposed NOR would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because:

• No requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services;

• Only firms that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements would provide testing services; and

• Most of these laboratories will already be accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the children's booster seats standard to their scope of accreditation.

No substantive changes in these facts have occurred since the NPR was published, and CPSC did not receive any comments regarding the NOR. Therefore, for the final rule, the Commission continues to certify that amending part 1112 to include the NOR for the booster seats final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small laboratories.

The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, certain categories of CPSC actions normally have “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” and therefore, they do not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Safety standards providing requirements for products come under this categorical exclusion. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The final rule for booster seats falls within the categorical exclusion.

The final rule for booster seats contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The preamble to the proposed rule (82 FR 22932-33) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. OMB has not yet assigned a control number for this information collection. We did not receive any comment regarding the information collection burden of the proposal. However, the final rule makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because the number of estimated manufacturers subject to the information collection burden is now estimated at 46 manufacturers, rather than the 49 manufacturers initially estimated in the proposed rule, and the number of models tested has increased from two models in the NPR, to three models for the final rule.

Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is modified as follows:

Our estimate is based on the following:

Section 8.1 of ASTM F640-18 requires that all booster seats and their retail packaging be permanently marked or labeled as follows: The manufacturer, distributor, or seller name, place of business (city, state, mailing address, including zip code), and telephone number; and a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year as a minimum) of manufacture.

CPSC is aware of 46 firms that supply booster seats in the U.S. market. For PRA purposes, we assume that all 46 firms use labels on their products and on their packaging already. All firms will need to make some modifications to their existing labels. We estimate that the time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each of the 46 firms supplies, on average, test slightly more than 2.5 different models of booster seats per year. Accordingly, for this estimate we round the number of models to three. Therefore, we estimate the burden hours associated with labels to be 138 hours annually (1 hour × 46 firms × 3 models per firm = 138 hours annually).

We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $32.47 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” December 2017, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, we estimate the annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements in the final rule to be approximately $4,481 ($32.47 per hour × 138 hours = $4,480.86). This collection of information does not require operating, maintenance, or capital costs.

Section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-18 requires instructions to be supplied with the product. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the “normal course of their activities” are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are “usual and customary.” We are unaware of booster seats that generally require use instructions but lack such instructions. Therefore, we estimate that no burden hours are associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F2640-18, because any burden associated with supplying instructions with booster seats would be “usual and customary” and not within the definition of “burden” under the OMB's regulations.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this final rule to the OMB.

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA applies to this final rule issued under section 104.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR parts 1112 and 1237 as follows:

Although the vast majority of representatives conducting business before us on behalf of Social Security beneficiaries and claimants ethically and conscientiously assist their clients, we are concerned that some representatives are using our processes in a way that undermines the integrity of our programs and harms claimants. Accordingly, we are clarifying that certain actions are prohibited, and we are providing additional means to address representative actions that do not serve the best interests of claimants.

On August 16, 2016,1 we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register in which we proposed clarifications and revisions to our rules of conduct for representatives. To the extent that we adopt a proposed change as final without revision, and we already discussed at length the reason for and details of the proposal, we will not repeat that information here.

In response to the NPRM, we received 154 timely submitted comments that addressed issues within the scope of our proposed rules. Based on those comments, we are modifying some of our proposed changes to address concerns that commenters raised. We have also made editorial changes consistent with plain language writing requirements. We made conforming changes in other sections not originally edited in the NPRM. Finally, we made changes to ensure correct paragraph punctuation in §§ 404.1740 and 416.1540; a nomenclature change to reflect the organization of our agency in §§ 404.1765(b)(1) and 416.1565(b)(1); and updated a cross-reference in §§ 404.1755 and 416.1555 that refers to §§ 404.1745 and 416.1545, sections reorganized and rewritten in the NPRM and codified in the final rule.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that our proposed rules would deter potential representatives from representing claimants in Social Security matters.

Response: These rules reflect our interest in protecting claimants and ensuring the integrity of our administrative process, and they do not impose unreasonable standards of conduct. These additional rules of conduct should not deter competent, knowledgeable, and principled representatives.

Comment: Some commenters objected to the provision in proposed § 404.1705(b)(4) and 416.1505(b)(4), which includes “persons convicted of a felony (as defined by § 404.1506(c)), or any crime involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, false statements, misrepresentation, deceit, or theft” as examples of persons who lack “good character and reputation.” The commenters sometimes referred to this provision as involving a “lifetime ban” on representation. Commenters noted that a “lifetime ban” fails to consider multiple situations, such as overturned convictions. Some commenters suggested that we place the ban only on representatives with prior felony convictions but exempt those with past misdemeanor convictions, because claimants may have family members with misdemeanor convictions who are otherwise well-qualified to be representatives. Commenters opined that there is nothing inherent about a felony conviction that would prohibit a person from providing competent representation. Finally, commenters suggested that this proposed regulation would decrease the pool of representatives, particularly for minorities, because, according to these commenters, some statistics show higher conviction rates in minority populations.

Response: We have broad rulemaking authority to decide who can serve as a non-attorney representative. We believe we can achieve our goal of protecting claimants from potentially fraudulent representatives by limiting the prohibition to individuals convicted of certain offenses that are more severe in nature or involve behavior that reflects poorly on an individual's ability to represent claimants. There is no evidence that this approach will decrease the pool of available, high quality representatives for any particular population. Accordingly, we determined that individuals are not qualified to practice before us if they have a felony conviction (as defined in our rules) or a conviction involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, false statements, misrepresentation, deceit, or theft. These criminal convictions reflect crimes that, by their nature, are more serious based on their categorization as felonies, or involve behavior that reflects poorly on an individual's honesty and moral judgment and, therefore, also reflects poorly on the individual's ability to represent claimants. This disqualification would not apply to convictions that have been overturned or other similar situations, which we have clarified in the final rules. The regulation does not specifically bar individuals with misdemeanor convictions from serving as representatives, unless the misdemeanor involved moral turpitude, dishonesty, false statements, misrepresentation, deceit, or theft, which are the misdemeanors that we believe reflect a lack of honesty and moral judgment, characteristics that we consider necessary in representatives. Further, even if individuals are unable to serve as appointed representatives due to these rules, they may still assist their family members with claims in an unofficial capacity.

Comment: Some commenters stated that claimants should be held harmless if they appoint a representative whom they later learn was not qualified (proposed §§ 404.1705(b)(4) and 416.1505(b)(4)).

Response: These rules do not suggest that we would impose any penalty on a claimant who appoints or attempts to appoint an unqualified representative. This regulatory section only identifies whom we will recognize as a representative.

Comment: Some commenters stated that proposed §§ 404.1740(b)(3)(iii) and 416.1540(b)(3)(iii) should clarify that a list of potential dates and times that a representative will be available for a hearing is only required to be accurate at the time it is submitted. The comments explained that many representatives schedule hearings in multiple locations, and availability may change once they have other obligations scheduled.

Response: We understand that schedules change, and we do not expect representatives to hold open their schedules for all of the dates and times that they identify. We did not change the proposed regulatory text.

Comment: Commenters stated that the term “scheduled” is too vague (proposed §§ 404.1740(b)(3)(iv) and 416.1540(b)(3)(iv)).

Response: A hearing has been “scheduled” when a date and time have been set and we have notified all parties. We clarified the language in these sections.

Comment: Some commenters asserted that restricting a representative's right to withdraw after a hearing is scheduled, except under “extraordinary circumstances,” is an overly broad restriction that inhibits a representative's right to withdraw in circumstances where the representative knows that the client no longer has a viable case. Many commenters also argued that forcing representatives to divulge their reasons for withdrawal to justify extraordinary circumstances may violate the attorney-client privilege, if the withdrawal is based on the representative's knowledge that a client may be engaging in fraud. Other commenters stated that if a claimant does not want to attend a hearing but will not release the representative, and the representative cannot withdraw, the administrative law judge (ALJ) will not be able to dismiss the case and will have to hold a hearing, which wastes administrative time and resources. Finally, commenters noted that hearings are sometimes already scheduled by the time representatives are hired. Because representatives cannot view claimants' files until they are appointed, representatives may have to withdraw after reviewing the file even though a hearing has already been scheduled.

Response: The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule (Model Rule) 1.16 includes requirements for withdrawal similar to this regulation. Some examples of “extraordinary circumstances” under which we may allow a withdrawal include (1) serious illness; (2) death or serious illness in the representative's immediate family; or (3) failure to locate a claimant despite active and diligent attempts to contact the claimant.

We are not seeking privileged communications between an attorney and client. If the representative cannot describe why he or she must withdraw without revealing privileged or confidential communications (and if no exceptions to the attorney-client privilege exist, such as the crime-fraud exception), the representative should state this fact, not disclose the privileged or confidential communication, and allow the ALJ to evaluate the request under these circumstances.

Comment: Commenters raised the issue of providing “prompt and timely communication” with claimants, stating that this is often difficult with homeless or indigent claimants (proposed §§ 404.1740(b)(3)(v) and 416.1540(b)(3)(v)). Some commenters suggested changing this language to “keep the client reasonably informed of the status of the case” in accordance with Model Rule 1.4. One commenter requested that we define “incompetent representation” and “reasonable and adequate representation.”

Response: Representatives are responsible for maintaining timely contact with their clients. We expect representatives to have working contact information for all of their clients, but we recognize that it may be difficult to locate homeless or indigent clients in some circumstances. We have changed the language of §§ 404.1740(b)(3)(v) and 416.1540(b)(3)(v) to take into account the difficulty in locating certain claimants despite a representative's best efforts. We did not provide any definition of “incompetent representation” or “reasonable and adequate representation,” because these terms do not appear in the rule.

Comment: A number of commenters were concerned with proposed §§ 404.1740(b)(5) and 416.1540(b)(5), which require a representative to disclose certain things in writing when the representative submits a medical or vocational opinion to us. The commenters specifically raised concerns about the disclosure of physician referrals and the disclosure requirement when the medical or vocational opinion was “drafted, prepared, or issued” by an employee of the representative or an individual contracting with the representative for services. Commenters also stated that the term “prepared” is vague, and it is unclear whether disclosure would be required if a representative discusses the sequential evaluation process with a provider of an opinion or supplies a questionnaire for a provider to complete. Some commenters further maintained that requiring disclosure of physician referrals would violate the attorney-client privilege and that such referrals are irrelevant to the representation of the case. Commenters also requested that the regulation clarify that opinions are entitled to the same weight regardless of whether the representative requested them. Finally, commenters argued that requiring disclosure will “chill” referrals for those claimants who need them most.

Response: When a representative submits a medical or vocational opinion to us, he or she has an affirmative duty to disclose to us in writing if the representative or one of the representative's employees or contractors participated in drafting, preparing, or issuing the opinion. For clarity, we consider providing guidance or providing a questionnaire, template or format to fall within the parameters of this rule when the guidance, questionnaire, template or format is used to draft a medical or vocational opinion submitted to us. In response to the concern that the term “prepared” is vague, unless the context indicates otherwise, we intend the ordinary meaning of words used in our regulations. We intend the word “prepared” here to have its ordinary meaning. Representatives also have an affirmative duty to disclose to us in writing if the representative referred or suggested that the claimant be examined, treated, or assisted by the individual who provided the opinion evidence. However, we are not seeking privileged or confidential communications concerning legal advice between an attorney and client, nor are we requiring disclosure of detailed communications. We are only requiring that representatives disclose the fact that they made a referral or participated in drafting, preparing, or issuing an opinion. See Fed. R. of Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A) (“When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party must . . . describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.”) We explain what we mean by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges more fully in §§ 404.1513(b)(2) and 416.913(b)(2) of our rules. We will interpret the affirmative duty in final §§ 404.1740(b)(5) and 416.1540(b)(5) in light of our interpretation of those privileges in §§ 404.1513(b)(2) and 416.913(b)(2). In response to the request that the regulation clarify that opinions are entitled to the same weight regardless of whether the representative requested them, we have other regulations that govern how we evaluate medical opinion evidence. See 20 CFR 404.1520c, 404.1527, 416.920c, and 416.927.

Comment: Some commenters stated that notifying us if a claimant is committing fraud (proposed §§ 404.1740(b)(6) and 416.1540(b)(6)) violates the attorney-client privilege and Model Rule 1.6. Commenters also suggested a more direct adoption of the provisions of Model Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal.

Response: We do not believe that our final rule violates either the attorney-client privilege or Model Rule 1.6. Our final rule requires a representative to “[d]isclose to us immediately if the representative discovers that his or her services are or were used by the claimant to commit fraud against us.” Model Rule 1.6(b)(2) 2 includes an exception to confidentiality “to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services.” Furthermore, the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege allows a lawyer to disclose otherwise privileged communications when they are in furtherance of a crime or fraudulent act. When a claimant uses a representative's services in furtherance of the claimant's fraud, there is a reasonable certainty that the fraud will cause substantial injury to the Social Security trust funds. Such fraud also undermines public confidence in our programs. Our proposed and final rules are fully consistent with the exception to confidentiality found in Model Rule 1.6(b)(2). The final rules also address the aim of Model Rule 3.3 to limit false or misleading statements, but within the unique context of the legal and procedural structure of the Social Security programs. Therefore, we are not changing the originally proposed language.

Comment: A few commenters asked us to clarify whether disbarment or disqualification will be an automatic bar to representation, or whether we will address each situation individually (proposed §§ 404.1740(b)(7)-(9) and 416.1540(b)(7)-(9)).

Response: We will address any disclosure made pursuant to §§ 404.1740(b)(7)-(9) and 416.1540(b)(7)-(9) on an individual basis.

Comment: Some commenters stated that proposed § 416.1540(b)(10) is too broad, because representatives often refer Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimants to special needs trust attorneys, and the proposed language suggests that the representatives would be responsible for the conduct of the trust attorneys. Other commenters recommend that the regulation encompass only those people over whom representatives have supervisory authority.

Response: In response to these comments, we have revised the language in final §§ 404.1740(b)(10) and 416.1540(b)(10) to clarify that the affirmative duty applies “when the representative has managerial or supervisory authority over these individuals or otherwise has responsibility to oversee their work.” Further, because this requirement is an affirmative duty, we moved language from proposed §§ 404.1740(c)(14) and 416.1540(c)(14) to §§ 404.1740(b)(10) and 416.1540(b)(10), which outlines the affirmative duty to take remedial action when: (i) The representative's employees, assistants, partners, contractors, or other individuals' conduct violates these rules of conduct and standards of responsibility, and (ii) the representative has reason to believe a violation of these rules of conduct and standards of responsibility will occur. We revised the language of final §§ 404.1740(c)(14) and 415.1540(c)(14) to prohibit representatives from failing to oversee other individuals working on the claims on which the representative is appointed when the representative has managerial or supervisory authority over these individuals or otherwise has responsibility to oversee their work.

Comment: Some commenters objected to proposed §§ 404.1740(c)(1) and 416.1540(c)(1), which prohibit “misleading a claimant, or prospective claimant or beneficiary, about the representative's services and qualifications.” Commenters asked whether it would be misleading if a claimant refers to a non-attorney representative as an attorney, and the representative does not correct them.

Response: Not correcting a known misconception about the representative's status as a non-attorney is “misleading a claimant,” as contemplated under this prohibition.

Comment: A few commenters objected to the language of proposed § 404.1740(c)(7)(ii)(B), which prohibits “[p]roviding misleading information or misrepresenting facts . . . where the representative has or should have reason to believe the information was misleading and the facts would constitute a misrepresentation.” These commenters stated that many claimants are mentally ill, and it is difficult to ascertain whether a client is providing accurate facts. The commenters also objected to the term “should,” stating that it is overly vague. A few commenters believe the standard “knowingly” should be added. Commenters also stated that this regulation conflicted with our rule on the submission of evidence, which requires representatives to submit all available evidence.

Response: Based on the comments, we have changed the “has or should have reason to believe” language of the proposed rule to “knows or should have known” in the final rule. Whether or not a claimant is mentally ill, a representative will violate the standard in the final rule if he or she presents information that he or she knows to be false or circumstances demonstrate that the representative should have known it to be false. This rule does not conflict with our rule requiring representatives to submit all evidence, because a false document is not evidence as contemplated under §§ 404.1513 and 416.913. Further, “should” is not an overly broad standard and is a commonly used term in Federal laws and regulations. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a(a)(1).

Comment: A few commenters stated that proposed §§ 404.1740(c)(7)(ii)(C) and 416.1540(c)(7)(ii)(C) should clarify that representatives may contact SSA staff regarding matters such as case status, requests for critical case flags, Congressional inquiries, or when SSA staff ask the representative to contact them.

Response: We did not make any changes in response to these comments. The proposed and final rules specifically states that representatives should not communicate with agency staff “outside the normal course of business or other prescribed procedures in an attempt to inappropriately influence the processing or outcome of a claim(s).” Matters such as case status inquiries, requests for critical case flags, and Congressional inquiries are not outside the normal course of business, nor would they be attempts to inappropriately influence the processing or outcome of a claim.

Comment: Some commenters asked whether a representative would be guilty of misleading an ALJ if an ALJ finds that a claimant's statements are “not fully credible.” These commenters also recommend adding “knowingly” to proposed §§ 404.1740(c)(3) and 416.1540(c)(3). Other commenters stated that requiring representatives to disclose matters of which they do not have actual knowledge would “chill” advocacy.

Response: On March 16, 2016, we published Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, “Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims” in the Federal Register.3 In this SSR, we eliminated the use of the term “credibility” from our sub-regulatory policy, because our regulations do not use this term. In doing so, we clarified that subjective symptom evaluation is not an examination of an individual's character. Instead, we will more closely follow our regulatory language regarding symptom evaluation. With respect to the commenters' concerns, the regulations include a number of factors that must be considered when evaluating symptoms, but a representative will not be found to be misleading an ALJ based solely on the results of this evaluation. Acknowledging the concern about the standard we will use in evaluating this type of situation, we are changing the “has or should have reason to believe” language in the proposed rule to “knows or should have known” in the final rule. This provision addresses only situations where the representative knows or should have known that specific statements, evidence, assertions, or representations are false or misleading.

Comment: Commenters objected to the 14-day limit to respond to charges and proposed that the 30-day limit in the current rules should be maintained (proposed §§ 404.1750 and 416.1550).

Response: We did not adopt this suggestion, because we believe that 14 days allows for a more timely resolution of misconduct matters. The 14-day timeframe provides the representative with sufficient time to respond to charges, which typically consists only of affirming or denying various factual allegations. However, in response to the commenters' concerns that the proposed rule did not give representatives adequate time to respond to the charges, we added the term “business” to clarify that the time limit is 14 business days.

Comment: One commenter suggested that representatives be suspended from representing clients until the sanction process is complete.

Response: The Social Security Act requires that we give a representative notice and opportunity for a hearing before we suspend or disqualify him or her from practicing before us. We have long allowed representatives to continue to practice before us until there is a final decision on the case. We will continue to impose sanctions only after the administrative sanctions process is completed.

Comment: Some commenters suggested that a representative should not have to show good cause for objecting to the manner of hearing (proposed §§ 404.1765(d) and 416.1565(d)). One commenter stated that a hearing should always be in person unless a party can demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

Response: The hearing officer is in the best position to decide how to conduct a particular hearing in the most effective and efficient manner. A “good cause” standard for objecting to the manner of the hearing ensures that any objection to this issue is well-founded.

Comment: A few commenters stated that 14 days is insufficient time to request review of a hearing officer's decision (proposed §§ 404.1775 and 416.1575). The commenters requested that the rule clarify whether it refers to business or calendar days.

Response: In response to these and other related comments, we adopted this suggestion and added the word “business” to clarify that the 14-day period means 14 business days.

Comment: Some commenters stated that proposed §§ 404.1785 and 416.1585 shift the burden from the Appeals Council to representatives to obtain evidence. They stated that by changing the language from the Appeals Council “shall require that the evidence be obtained” to “the Appeals Council will allow the party with the information to submit the additional evidence,” the regulation relieves the Appeals Council of the responsibility for obtaining evidence and allows the Appeals Council to ignore evidence submitted by another party.

Response: We changed the language in §§ 404.1785 and 416.1585 for clarity. In the adversarial proceedings to sanction representatives, the obligation to provide evidence to the Appeals Council is, and has always been, on the party with the information. Accordingly, we are not changing the language proposed in the NPRM.

Comment: Some commenters asked that we clarify which decisions we will publish and when we will publish them (proposed §§ 404.1790(f) and 416.1590(f)). They also inquired as to whether the public will have access to the published decisions, and they expressed concern that the decisions might contain personally identifiable information.

Response: On June 16, 2017, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) adopted Recommendation 2017-1, “Adjudication Materials on Agency Websites.” 4 ACUS recommended that “[a]gencies should consider providing access on their websites to decisions and supporting materials (e.g., pleadings, motions, briefs) issued and filed in adjudicative proceedings.” ACUS also recommended that “[a]gencies that adjudicate large volumes of cases that do not vary considerably in terms of their factual contexts or the legal analyses employed in their dispositions should consider disclosing on their websites a representative sampling of actual cases and associated adjudication materials.” We will work with ACUS with respect to this recommendation, and we will provide details in sub-regulatory guidance of how we will publish decisions after these final rules become effective. In response to the commenters' concerns about privacy, we take concerns regarding personally identifiable information seriously, and the final rule makes clear that we will remove or redact any personally identifiable information from the decisions.

Comment: One commenter stated that proposed § 404.1790 should use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard rather than the “substantial evidence standard.”

Response: The Appeals Council is an appellate body that generally reviews decisions using the substantial evidence standard.5 Therefore, we are not changing this language.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the word “may” should be changed to “will” in proposed §§ 404.1790(f) and 416.1590(f), which state, “Prior to making a decision public, we may remove or redact information from the decision.”

Response: We adopted this comment and changed “may” to “will.” We will redact any personally identifiable information from the decisions.

Comment: One commenter stated that the 3-year ban on reinstatement after suspension is too harsh.

Response: The 3-year prohibition is actually a 3-year wait to reapply for reinstatement and we believe it is appropriate, because our experience shows that when the Appeals Council denies a request for reinstatement, the representative typically has not taken appropriate action to remedy the violation or does not understand its severity. We are implementing this change to ensure more thoroughly supported requests for reinstatement.

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these final rules meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563 and are subject to OMB review.

This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 because it is administrative in nature and results in no more than de minimis costs.

We certify that these final rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

These final rules contain information collection burdens in §§ 404.1740(b)(5) through (9) and 416.1540(b)(5) through (b)(9) that require OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). As the PRA requires, we submitted a clearance request to OMB for approval of these sections. We will publish the OMB number and expiration date upon approval.

Further, these final rules contain information collection activities at 20 CFR 404.1750(c) and (e)(2), 404.1765(g)(1), 404.1775(b), 404.1799(d)(2), 416.1550(c) and (e)(2), 416.1565(g)(1), 416.1575(b), and 416.1599(d)(2). However, 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1)(B)(ii) exempts these activities from the OMB clearance requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

We published an NPRM on August 16, 2016 at 81 FR 54520. In that NPRM, we solicited comments under the PRA on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. We received no public comments relating to any of these issues. We will not collect the information referenced in these burden sections until we receive OMB approval.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III, parts 404 and part 416, as set forth below:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard just recently received the final details of this rowing event, Wyandotte Invites, which does not provide sufficient time to publish an NPRM prior to the event. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule.

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 of this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a youth rowing regatta along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a special local regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on July 15, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.0′ N, 083°09.4′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11.7′ N, 083°08.9′ W (NAD 83).

An on-scene representative of the COTP may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9560.

The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 8 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on July 15, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the special local regulation 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 involves a special local regulation lasting less than five hours that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] 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 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone: Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all waters of the Des Plaines River between the McDonough Street Bridge and Cass Street Bridge in Joliet, Illinois. Enforcement will occur from 9:15 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 3, 2018. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. Additionally, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic notifications, email notifications, or by direct communication from on scene patrol commanders. If the Captain of the Port or a designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may grant general permission to enter the regulated area via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM or at (414) 747-7182.

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 it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a reasonable comment period prior to the date of the event. The rule must be in force by July 4, 2018 to serve its purpose of ensuring the safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated with the fireworks display. Hazards include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

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 of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential safety hazards associated with a fireworks display in this location.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on July 4, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 350 yard radius of the fireworks barge, which will be anchored in approximate position 38°47′12.07″ N, 075°07′48.89″ W. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels and the public within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of Delaware Bay off Lewes, DE during a fireworks display from a barge. The event is scheduled to take place from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone will extend 350 yards around the barge, which will be anchored at approximate position 38°47′12.07″ N, 075°07′48.89″ W. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide public notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (2) persons and vessels will still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 involves a safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on the navigable water in the Delaware Bay, during a fireworks display lasting approximately one hour. This rule 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 preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) 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:

Tri City Water Follies will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018, to commemorate Independence Day. The fireworks are to be launched from Columbia Park in Kennewick, WA, over the Columbia River. Hazards from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the launch site.

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 it would be impracticable to complete a notice-and-comment rulemaking by the date of the fireworks display, July 4, 2018.

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 of this rule would be impracticable because the Coast Guard needs to have a safety zone regulation in place by July 4, 2018, to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display on that date.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on July 4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Columbia River within 450 yards of a launch site located at 46°13′22″ N, 119°08′30″ W, in vicinity of Columbia Park in Kennewick, WA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters an hour before, during, and an hour after the scheduled 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Columbia River for approximately two and a half hours when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard 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 involves a safety zone lasting approximately two and a half hours that will prohibit entry within 450 yards of a fireworks launch site. 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 Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh 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 June 20, 2018, River Salvage notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting several days of pipeline removal work over the next several weeks in the vicinity of mile marker 34 of the Monongahela River in Gallatin, PA. 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by June 27, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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 of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the pipeline removal work.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with pipeline removal work from June 27, 2018 through July 11, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone on a four-mile stretch of the Monongahela River. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the pipeline is removed.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 6 a.m. on June 27, 2018 through 6 p.m. on July 11, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Monongahela River from mile marker 32.0 to mile marker 36.0. The Coast Guard was informed that the pipeline removal work would take place from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on each of approximately three consecutive days during the effective period. The periods of enforcement will be 30 minutes prior to, during, and 1 hour after any pipeline removal work. A safety vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to Mariners (LNM), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), or through other means of public notice, as appropriate, at least 3 hours in advance of the enforcement periods. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during pipeline work.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the temporary 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 Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard. 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. All 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 the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and dates for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone covers a four-mile stretch of the Monongahela River for twelve hours on approximately three days. Vessel traffic will be able to safely navigate through the affected area before and after the pipeline work, and a safety vessel will coordinate vessel traffic. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard 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 temporary 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 involves a temporary safety zone that covers a four-mile stretch of the Monongahela River for twelve hours on approximately three days. 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:

On April 17, 2018, the City of Lake Oswego notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display launched from a barge in the Willamette River approximately 150 yards east of George Rodgers Park in Lake Oswego, OR. In response, on May 29, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Willamette River, Lake Oswego, OR (83 FR 24443). 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 June 13, 2018, we received three 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 of this rule would be impracticable because the Coast Guard needs to have a safety zone regulation in place by July 4, 2018, to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display on that date.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Columbia River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this July 4, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 450-yard radius of the barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received three comments on our NPRM published May 29, 2018. The first comment was an email from an individual concerned with fire and health hazards associated with the fireworks display and not with the proposed safety zone. The individual was directed to contact the sponsoring organization to address those concerns. The second comment contained no suggested changes or recommendations. The third comment suggested a lack of communication with neighborhoods regarding the scope and ramifications of the river closure, and a concern with the containment of human wastes from boaters due to beach closures. As stated later in this temporary final rule, vessel traffic can request to transit through this safety zone, which will affect a limited area of the Willamette River for approximately two and a half hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. This safety zone does not include any beach closures. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Willamette River within 450-yards of a barge located at 45°24′37.46″ N, 122°39′29.70″ W, in vicinity of George Rogers Park in Lake Oswego, OR. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Willamette River for approximately two and a half hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. 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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 less than two and a half hours that will prohibit entry within 450-yards of a barge in the Willamette River located approximately 150 yards east of George Rodgers Park in Lake Oswego, OR. 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 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by July 3, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments. The NPRM process would delay establishment of this safety zone until after the date of the fireworks and compromise public safety.

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 of this rule is contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display.

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 a fireworks display on July 3, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile portion of the Lower Mississippi River. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 3, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 137.5 and MM 138.5, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be 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 the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This temporary safety zone covers a one-mile portion of the River for only one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs 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 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 this temporarysafety 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 involves a temporary safety zone lasting only one hour that will prohibit entry on a one-mile portion of the Lower Mississippi River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L(60)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:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.1191 on the specified date ranges as indicated in the Table below. Specific event times will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners at least 20 days prior to the date of each of the events.

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 it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The publishing of an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest since a final rule needs to be in place by July 3, 2018, to minimize potential danger to the participants and the public during the 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 of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated with this event on July 3, 2018.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Surf City fireworks display on July 3, 2018, is a safety concern for maritime spectators during the launch of fireworks on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Surf City, North Carolina. This rule is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the aerial fireworks display.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on July 3, 2018. The safety zone will include all navigable waters within a 100 yard radius of the fireworks launch location at approximate position: Latitude 34°25′46″ N, longitude 077°33′01″ W, on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Surf City, North Carolina. This safety zone is being established for the safety of the maritime spectators observing the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately. To request permission to remain in, enter, or transit through the safety zone, vessels should contact the COTP or a designated representative of the COTP through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at telephone number 910-343-3882, or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The one-hour regulation enforcement period should not overly burden vessel traffic based on the short duration of the period. This safety zone will only impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Surf City, NC. Additionally, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify vessels in the region of the establishment of this regulation.

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 the precise number of small entities impacted is unknown, it is expected that the number of vessels in this portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway during the event will be low. 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 involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Surf City, NC. 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 COTP Captain of the Port 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 it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The publishing of an NPRM would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest since a final rule needs to be in place by July 4, 2018, to minimize potential danger to the participants and the public during the 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 of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated with this event on July 4, 2018.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port North Carolina (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Town of Swansboro Fourth of July Celebration fireworks display on July 4, 2018, is a safety concern for maritime spectators during the launch of fireworks on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Swansboro, North Carolina. This rule is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the aerial fireworks display.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone will include all navigable waters within a 150 yard radius of the fireworks launch location at approximate position: Latitude 34°41′02″ N, longitude 077°07′04″ W, on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Swansboro, North Carolina. This safety zone is being established for the safety of the maritime spectators observing the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. All vessels within this safety zone when this section becomes effective must depart the zone immediately. To request permission to remain in, enter, or transit through the safety zone, vessels should contact the COTP or a designated representative of the COTP through the Coast Guard Sector North Carolina Command Duty Officer, Wilmington, North Carolina, at telephone number 910-343-3882, or on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 MHz) or channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

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

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The one-hour regulation enforcement period should not overly burden vessel traffic based on the short duration of the period. This safety zone will only impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Swansboro, NC. Additionally, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify vessels in the region of the establishment of this regulation.

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 the precise number of small entities impacted is unknown, it is expected that the number of vessels in this portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway during the event will be low. 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 involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry into a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway near Swansboro, NC. 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:

The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981 of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.

This final action extends the period allowing owners or operators of affected sources subject to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (commonly known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)) to submit certain reports as PDF file attachments using the ECMPS Client Tool until July 1, 2020. Prior to this extension, that period was scheduled to end on June 30, 2018. As explained further below, the EPA finds that there is “good cause” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to make the amendments extending the deadline final without prior notice and comment, in part because the rule maintains the status quo, and the reporting system that would apply without the extension (i.e., the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI)) is currently unable to accept the MATS reports, thus, making it impossible for the regulated community to comply with all reporting requirements without this extension. Thus, as explained further below, the EPA maintains that notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest for this action. The EPA also finds good cause under APA 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective on July 1, 2018, instead of 30 days after publication as generally required, to ensure that there are no gaps in the regulated community's ability to submit all the required reports.

The Agency's authority is found at 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. and 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq.

This extension of the time period allowing temporary submission of PDF file attachments has neither costs nor benefits.

On February 12, 2012, the EPA issued the final MATS (77 FR 9304; February 16, 2012). In that rule, owners or operators of coal- or oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs) were required to report emissions and compliance information electronically using two data systems: The ECMPS Client Tool and CEDRI. The two electronic reporting systems were intended to accept different MATS compliance related information (e.g., the ECMPS Client Tool was to be used by EGU owners or operators to report, among other things, mercury (Hg) continuous monitoring data and the CEDRI system was to be used to submit, among other things, semiannual compliance reports). See 40 CFR 63.10031(a), (f).

After promulgation, but prior to the existing-source compliance date of April 16, 2015, the regulated community suggested to the EPA that the electronic reporting burden of MATS could be significantly reduced if all the required information were reported to one data system instead of two. Specifically, the regulated community suggested that the EPA amend MATS to require all the data to be reported through the ECMPS Client Tool, which is a familiar data system that most EGU owners or operators have been using since 2009 to meet the electronic reporting requirements of the Acid Rain Program.

In response, the EPA decided to require all electronic reports required by MATS to be submitted through the ECMPS Client Tool, but the Agency recognized that it could not make the necessary changes to the ECMPS Client Tool by the April 16, 2015, compliance date. For that reason, the EPA issued a final rule on March 24, 2015, prior to the MATS compliance date, revising the MATS reporting requirements (80 FR 15511; March 24, 2015). Among other things, the final rule suspended the requirement to submit to CEDRI the MATS compliance reports described in 40 CFR 63.10031(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(4), and instead allowed parties to submit those reports to the ECMPS Client Tool as PDF files. See 40 CFR 63.10031(f)(6). The EPA included a self-imposed deadline of April 17, 2017, to revise the ECMPS Client Tool to accept all of the MATS compliance information. If the revised system was not ready by that date, the rule required reporting of the MATS compliance data to revert to the original two-system approach on and after that date. See 40 CFR 63.10031(f).

On September 29, 2016, the EPA proposed for comment to revise MATS to require a single electronic reporting system, (i.e., the ECMPS Client Tool), and also proposed to extend the PDF file reporting period from April 17, 2017, to December 31, 2017, by which date the Agency believed it would complete the necessary changes to the ECMPS Client Tool (81 FR 67062; September 29, 2016). The comment period was scheduled to close on October 31, 2016, but it was subsequently extended until November 15, 2016, in response to requests from several stakeholders for an extension. The public comments were generally supportive of simplifying and streamlining the MATS reporting requirements and to use the ECMPS Client Tool as the single electronic reporting system. However, industry commenters questioned whether the EPA would complete the changes to the ECMPS Client Tool by December 31, 2017, and suggested dates ranging from six quarters after completion of the final rule was issued to 2020. No commenters stated that the EPA should not extend the PDF file reporting period. On April 6, 2017, the EPA finalized an extension of the PDF file reporting period from April 17, 2017, to June 30, 2018, because the Agency recognized it would not complete the necessary revisions to the ECMPS Client Tool and conduct the necessary testing by the December 31, 2017, proposed extension date (82 FR 16736; April 6, 2017).1

The EPA continues to work on the ECMPS Client Tool, but the Agency recently concluded that the changes and necessary testing will not be completed by June 30, 2018. In addition, the CEDRI interface is not currently capable of accepting the compliance reports that are currently being submitted via PDF files to the ECMPS Client Tool. This means that EGU owners or operators would be unable to submit the required reports if PDF file reporting authority is not extended. Moreover, the CEDRI interface cannot be operational before July 1, 2018 (i.e., the first date CEDRI reporting would be required absent an extension), and the EPA is continuing to change the ECMPS Client Tool to accept all of the MATS compliance reports. For these reasons, the EPA has concluded that it is reasonable to continue to allow the PDF file reporting option. This extension changes neither the responsibility of all owners or operators of affected sources to comply with the applicable MATS emissions standards and other requirements nor the compliance information available to the public as PDF files. For all these reasons, the EPA is revising the reporting requirements in the MATS regulations, 40 CFR 63.10021 and 63.10031, by extending the period for affected sources to submit certain compliance related information via PDF file reports from June 30, 2018, to July 1, 2020.

As noted above, this action amends the reporting requirements by extending the period for affected sources to submit certain compliance related information via PDF file reports. This extension is critical because: (1) The EPA is still working to revise the ECMPS Client Tool so that it can accept all of the MATS compliance reports, and (2) the CEDRI system that would apply without this extension is not able to accept the compliance reports that are currently being submitted via PDF files. Without this action, affected source owners or operators would be unable to report certain MATS compliance information as required in the regulations and, as a result, the public would not have access to that information.

Section 553(b)(B) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. See also the final sentence of section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1), indicating that CAA section 307(d) does not apply in the case of any rule or circumstance referred to in section 553(b)(B) of the APA. As explained further below, the EPA finds that providing notice and comment is unnecessary in this situation because the extension of PDF file reporting maintains the status quo and does not relieve the regulated community of its responsibility to comply with the MATS. In addition, when in April 2017 the EPA proposed and finalized an extension of the PDF file reporting requirement, the Agency received no comments against or legal challenge to that extension rulemaking. Finally, the EPA also finds that notice and comment rulemaking in these circumstances would be contrary to the public interest because the electronic system that would apply without the extension (i.e., CEDRI) is currently unable to accept the MATS compliance reports that are currently being submitted via PDF files. Therefore, it would not be possible for affected source owners or operators to comply with all of the MATS reporting requirements without the extension and the public would be deprived of certain compliance related information as a result. The delay that would be inherent in notice and comment rulemaking would result in a potential loss of public availability of compliance information that is contrary to the public interest.

The EPA has determined that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary here for a number of reasons. First, this action will simply maintain the status quo and does not introduce any new substantive requirements.

Second, the EPA has no viable alternative to extending of PDF file reporting given that the CEDRI system is not currently able to accept the necessary reports. The EPA has concluded that the July 2020 extension date will provide the necessary time to complete the changes to and test the ECMPS Client Tool.

Third, the Agency previously provided an opportunity for comment on whether a PDF file reporting extension is justified where the electronic reporting system is not available. The Agency provided this opportunity for comment in the September 29, 2016, proposed rule (finalized April 6, 2017) to extend the PDF file reporting until June 30, 2018 (81 FR 67062; September 29, 2016 and 82 FR 16736; April 7, 2017). The EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that the extension of the PDF file reporting was unreasonable, although commenters did suggest the Agency provide more time than proposed. As a result, the Agency finalized an extension to June 30, 2018, 7 months longer than proposed, but considerably less time than suggested in comments. See 82 FR 16736. In this final rule, the EPA is recognizing that, as commenters in 2016 suggested, more time is needed to complete the move to the ECMPS Client Tool and that a longer extension of the PDF file reporting than the one previously afforded is appropriate.

In addition to finding that notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary, the EPA also finds that providing notice and comment in this situation would be contrary to the public interest. If the EPA were to delay this action to provide an opportunity for public comment, there would be a gap period during which the public would not have access to all of the MATS compliance information required by the rule. As explained above, the CEDRI system is not currently capable of accepting the MATS compliance reports that parties would be required to submit to it. Thus, if the PDF file reporting extension were not provided, some MATS compliance information would not be accessible to the public for some time. In addition, EGU owners or operators, along with the public and regulatory agencies, are already familiar with the interim PDF file submission process and the EPA continues to work on the ECMPS Client Tool so that it can accept all of the MATS compliance reports. The current process of EGU owners or operators attaching PDF files when submitting reports via the ECMPS Client Tool is well understood by all parties interested in the data and ensures that all compliance data are reported. Conversely, EGU owners or operators are not familiar with CEDRI reporting for MATS, so requiring compliance with CEDRI for some interim period before the full implementation of the ECMPS Client Tool would potentially cause confusion for the regulated community and the public. The EPA maintains that, in light of these facts, it is contrary to the public interest to have an interim period during which both the EPA and EGU owners or operators would have to expend the resources and time necessary to enable partial CEDRI reporting before fully converting to the ECMPS Client Tool. For these reasons, the EPA finds that providing notice and comment in these particular circumstances would be contrary to the public interest.

For all these reasons, the EPA finds good cause exists under section 553(b)(B) of the APA to issue this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for comment.

The EPA also finds good cause to make this final rule effective on July 1, 2018. Section 553(d) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), provides that final rules shall not become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, “except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause,” among other exceptions. The purpose of this provision is to “give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (DC Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an agency should “balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.” Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. The EPA has determined that it is necessary to make this final rule effective on July 1, 2018, instead of 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, to ensure that there are no gaps in the ability of affected MATS sources to submit the required compliance reports, given that the current authority to submit PDF file reports expires on June 30, 2018. The EPA also has determined that the owners or operators of affected MATS sources do not need time to adjust to this final action because this final rule simply maintains the status quo and does not introduce any new substantive requirements.

For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause exists under section 553(d)(3) of the APA to make this rule effective on July 1, 2018, instead of 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

This action amends the reporting requirement in the MATS regulation, 40 CFR 63.10021 and 10031.

The interim PDF reporting process described in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) has been further extended through June 30, 2020, to allow sufficient time for software development, programming, and testing. Until then, compliance with the emissions and operating limits continues to be assessed based on the various PDF file report submittals described in 40 CFR 63.10021(e)(9) and 63.10031(f). Data are also obtained from Hg, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfur dioxide continuous emission monitoring systems, as well as Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems, as reported through the ECMPS Client Tool.

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

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

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

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation and has assigned OMB Control Number 2060-0567. This action does not change the information collection requirements, and this action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the Agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

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. As described earlier, this action has no net regulatory burden on governments already subject to MATS. Accordingly, we have determined that this action will not result in any “significant” adverse economic impact for small governments.

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. As described earlier, this action has no substantial direct effect on Indian tribes already subject to MATS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action extends the deadline for interim reporting of electronic data; it does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in sections II.B and C of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

This is a summary of the FCC's Erratum, released on June 7, 2018. This summary contains technical amendments to the Commission's rules that were published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 18948 (May 1, 2018). The full text of the Commission's Report and Order, WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 18-37, released on April 5, 2018 is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

In the document published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 18948 (May 1, 2018), amendatory instruction 2 erroneously added text as paragraph (a)(6) to § 54.303. The Commission's intent was to add the text as paragraph (a)(7) to the section. This document corrects that error.

Accordingly, 47 CFR part 54 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of North Atlantic swordfish by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and implemented by the United States into two equal semi-annual directed fishery quotas—an annual incidental catch quota for fishermen targeting other species or catching swordfish recreationally, and a reserve category, according to the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended, and in accordance with implementing regulations. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

In 2017, ICCAT Recommendation 17-02 specified that the overall North Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch (TAC) be set at 9,925 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (13,200 mt whole weight (ww)) through 2021. Consistent with scientific advice, this was a reduction of 500 mt ww (375.9 mt dw) from previous ICCAT-recommended TACs. However, of this TAC, the United States' baseline quota remained at 2,937.6 mt dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. The Recommendation (17-02) also continued to limit underharvest carryover to 15 percent of a contracting party's baseline quota. Thus, the United States may carry over a maximum of 440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of underharvest. Absent adjustments, the codified baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw for 2018. At this time, given the extent of underharvest in 2017, NMFS anticipates carrying over the maximum allowable 15 percent (440.6 mt dw), which would result in a final adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota for the 2018 fishing year equal to 3,378.2 mt dw (2,937.6 + 440.6 = 3,378.2 mt dw). As in past years we anticipate allocating 50 mt dw from the adjusted quota to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments/research and allocating 300 mt dw to the Incidental category, which includes recreational landings and landings by incidental swordfish permit holders, consistent with § 635.27(c)(1)(i)(D) and (B). This would result in an adjusted quota of 3,028.2 mt dw for the directed fishery, which would be split equally (1,514.1 mt dw) between the two semi-annual periods in 2018 (January through June, and July through December). Landings attributable to the Swordfish General Commercial permit will count against the applicable semi-annual directed fishery quota.

The 2018 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and divided into two equal semi-annual quotas for the directed fishery, began on January 1, 2018. Landings attributable to the SWO General Commercial permit are counted against the applicable semi-annual directed fishery quota. Regional default retention limits for this permit have been established and are automatically effective from January 1 through December 31 each year, unless changed based on the inseason regional retention limit adjustment criteria at § 635.24(b)(4)(iv). The default retention limits established for the SWO General Commercial permit are: (1) Northwest Atlantic region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (2) Gulf of Mexico region—three swordfish per vessel per trip; (3) U.S. Caribbean region—two swordfish per vessel per trip; and, (4) Florida SWO Management Area—zero swordfish per vessel per trip. The default retention limits apply to SWO General Commercial permitted vessels and to HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial endorsement when fishing on non for-hire trips. As a condition of these permits, vessels may not possess, retain, or land any more swordfish than is specified for the region in which the vessel is located.

Under § 635.24(b)(4)(iii), NMFS may increase or decrease the SWO General Commercial permit vessel retention limit in any region within a range from zero to a maximum of six swordfish per vessel per trip. Any adjustments to the retention limits must be based upon a consideration of the relevant criteria provided in § 635.24(b)(4)(iv), which include: (A) The usefulness of information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock; (B) the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year; (C) the estimated amounts by which quotas for other categories of the fishery might be exceeded; (D) effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments; (E) variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish; (F) effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota; and, (G) review of dealer reports, landing trends, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds.

NMFS has considered these criteria as discussed below and their applicability to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limit in all regions for July through December of the 2018 North Atlantic swordfish fishing year. We have determined that the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions applicable to persons issued a SWO General Commercial permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial endorsement (when on a non for-hire trip) should be increased from the default levels that would otherwise automatically become effective on July 1, 2018, to six swordfish per vessel per trip from July 1 through December 31, 2018, unless otherwise later noticed. These are the same limits that were made effective through an inseason adjustment for the period January 1 through June 30, 2018 (82 FR 58761). Given the rebuilt status of the stock and the availability of quota, increasing the Swordfish General Commercial permit retention limits in three regions to six fish per vessel per trip will increase the likelihood that directed swordfish landings will approach, but not exceed, the available annual swordfish quota, and increase the opportunity for catching swordfish during the 2018 fishing year.

Last year, a six swordfish per vessel trip limit was in effect for Swordfish General Commercial permit holders in the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions for the entire 2017 fishing season. This limit resulted in total annual directed swordfish landings of approximately 901.0 mt dw, or 29.9 percent of the 3,009.4 mt dw annual adjusted directed quota for 2017. With a six fish retention limit in effect during the first semi-annual directed quota period in 2018, total directed swordfish landings through April 30, 2018, are approximately 209.6 mt dw, or 15.9 percent of the 1,318.8 mt dw semi-annual baseline directed swordfish quota.

Among the regulatory criteria for inseason adjustments to retention limits, and given the rebuilt status of the stock and availability of quota, is the requirement that NMFS consider the “effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan and its amendments.” See § 635.24(b)(4)(iv)(D). One consideration in deciding whether to increase the retention limit, in this case, is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full North Atlantic directed swordfish quota without exceeding it based upon the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP goal to, consistent with other objectives of this FMP, “manage Atlantic HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield so as to provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production, providing recreational opportunities, preserving traditional fisheries, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems”. This action will help preserve a traditional swordfish handgear fishery (rod and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit gear, and greenstick). Although this action does not specifically provide recreational fishing opportunities, it will have a minimal impact on the recreational sector because recreational landings are counted against a separate incidental swordfish quota.

NMFS has examined dealer reports and landing trends and determined that the information obtained from biological sampling and monitoring of the North Atlantic swordfish stock is useful. See § 635.24(b)(4)(iv)(A). Regarding the estimated ability of vessels participating in the fishery to land the amount of swordfish quota available before the end of the fishing year, § 635.24(b)(4)(iv)(B), NMFS reviewed accurate and timely electronic dealer landings data, which indicates that sufficient directed swordfish quota will be available for the July through December 2018 semi-annual quota period if recent swordfish landing trends continue. The directed swordfish quota has not been harvested for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be harvested or exceeded in 2018. Based upon recent landings rates from dealer reports, an increase in the vessel retention limits to six fish for Swordfish General Commercial permit holders in three regions is not likely to cause quotas for other categories of the fishery to be exceeded. See § 635.24(b)(4)(iv)(C). Similarly, regarding the criteria about the effects of catch rates in one region precluding vessels in another region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota, § 635.24(b)(4)(iv)(F), we expect there to be sufficient swordfish quota for the entirety of the 2018 fishing year, and thus increased catch rates in these three regions as a result of this action would not be expected to preclude vessels in the other region (e.g., the buoy gear fishery in the Florida SWO Management Area) from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the overall swordfish quota.

In making adjustments to the retention limits NMFS must also consider variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns of swordfish, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds. See § 635.24(b)(4)(iv)(G). With regard to swordfish abundance, the 2017 report by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics indicated that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is not overfished (B2015/Bmsy = 1.04), and overfishing is not occurring (F2015/Fmsy = 0.78). Increasing retention limits for the General Commercial directed fishery is not expected to affect the swordfish stock status determination because any additional landings would be within the ICCAT-recommended U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota allocation, which is consistent with conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing on the stock. Increasing opportunities by increasing retention limits from the default levels beginning on July 1, 2018, is also important because of the migratory nature and seasonal distribution of swordfish. In a particular geographic region, or waters accessible from a particular port, the amount of fishing opportunity for swordfish may be constrained by the short amount of time the swordfish are present as they migrate.

Finally, another consideration, consistent with the FMP and its amendments, is to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the retention limit for the SWO General Commercial permit will remain at zero swordfish per vessel per trip in the Florida SWO Management Area at this time. As discussed above, NMFS considered consistency with the 2006 HMS FMP and its amendments, and the importance for NMFS to continue to provide protection to important swordfish juvenile areas and migratory corridors. As described in Amendment 8 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP (78 FR 52012), the area off the southeastern coast of Florida, particularly the Florida Straits, contains oceanographic features that make the area biologically unique. It provides important juvenile swordfish habitat, and is essentially a narrow migratory corridor containing high concentrations of swordfish located in close proximity to high concentrations of people who may fish for them. Public comment on Amendment 8, including from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, indicated concern about the resultant high potential for the improper rapid growth of a commercial fishery, increased catches of undersized swordfish, the potential for larger numbers of fishermen in the area, and the potential for crowding of fishermen, which could lead to gear and user conflicts. These concerns remain valid. NMFS will continue to collect information to evaluate the appropriateness of the retention limit in the Florida SWO Management Area and other regional retention limits. This action therefore maintains a zero-fish retention limit in the Florida Swordfish Management Area.

The directed swordfish quota has not been harvested for several years and, based upon current landing trends, is not likely to be harvested or exceeded during 2018. This information indicates that sufficient directed swordfish quota should be available from July 1 through December 31, 2018, at the higher retention levels, within the limits of the scientifically-supported TAC and consistent with the goals of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP as amended, ATCA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are not expected to negatively impact stock health.

NMFS will continue to monitor the swordfish fishery closely during 2018 through mandatory landings and catch reports. Dealers are required to submit landing reports and negative reports (if no swordfish were purchased) on a weekly basis.

Depending upon the level of fishing effort and catch rates of swordfish, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure that the available quota is not exceeded or to enhance fishing opportunities. Subsequent actions, if any, will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, fishermen may access https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/2018-atlantic-swordfish-landings-updates for updates on quota monitoring.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP, as amended, provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to changes in swordfish landings, the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and regional variations in the fishery. Based on available swordfish quota, stock abundance, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of swordfish on the fishing grounds, among other considerations, adjustment to the SWO General Commercial permit retention limits from the default levels of two or three fish to six SWO per vessel per trip as discussed above is warranted, while maintaining the default limit of zero-fish retention in the Florida SWO Management Area. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the swordfish retention limit from the default levels would result in minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota.

NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the Federal Register, emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the “News and Announcements” website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/news-and-announcements (filter by “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species” under “Topic”). Delays in temporarily increasing these retention limits caused by the time required to publish a proposed rule and accept public comment would adversely and unnecessarily affect those SWO General Commercial permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders with a commercial endorsement that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the otherwise applicable lower default retention limits of three swordfish per vessel per trip in the Northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, and two swordfish per vessel per trip in the U.S. Caribbean region. Limiting opportunities to harvest available directed swordfish quota may have negative social and economic impacts for U.S. fishermen. Adjustment of the retention limits needs to be effective on July 1, 2018, to allow SWO General Commercial permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders with a commercial endorsement to benefit from the adjustment during the relevant time period, which could pass by for some fishermen, particularly in the Northwest Atlantic region who have access to the fishery during a short time period because of seasonal fish migration, if the action is delayed for notice and public comment. Furthermore, the public was given an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings, including the adoption of the North Atlantic swordfish U.S. quota, and the retention limit adjustments in this action would not have any additional effects or impacts since the retention limit does not affect the overall quota. Thus, there would be little opportunity for meaningful input and review with public comment on this action. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.24(b)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Federal regulations at § 648.82(n)(2)(ii) require the Regional Administrator to close a common pool Trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Area for a stock when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC is projected to be caught. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching that stock, and remains in effect for the remainder of the trimester. During the closure, common pool vessels fishing with trawl gear, sink gillnet gear, and longline/hook gear may not fish for, harvest, possess, or land regulated multispecies or ocean pout in or from the Trimester TAC Area for the stock.

The Trimester 1 TAC for Gulf of Maine (GOM) haddock is 26.3 mt (57,982 lb). Based on catch data through June 17, 2018, the common pool fishery is projected to have caught 29.4 mt (64,792 lb) of GOM haddock, or 112 percent of the Trimester 1 TAC. Effective June 29, 2018, the GOM Haddock Trimester TAC Area is closed for the remainder of Trimester 1, through August 31, 2018. The GOM Haddock Trimester TAC Area consists of statistical areas 513, 514, and 515. During the closure, common pool vessels fishing with trawl gear, sink gillnet gear, and longline/hook gear may not fish for, harvest, possess, or land regulated multispecies or ocean pout in or from this area. The area reopens at the beginning of Trimester 2 on September 1, 2018.

If a vessel declared its trip through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) or the interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to June 29, 2018, it may complete its trip within the GOM Haddock Trimester TAC Area. A vessel that has set its sink gillnet gear prior to June 29, 2018, may complete its trip by hauling such gear.

If the common pool fishery exceeds its total quota for a stock in the 2018 fishing year, the overage must be deducted from the common pool's quota for that stock for fishing year 2019. Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery are on our website at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The regulations require the Regional Administrator to close a trimester TAC area to the common pool fishery when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC for a stock has been caught. Updated catch information through June 17, 2018, only recently became available indicating that the common pool fishery is projected to have caught 112 percent of its Trimester 1 TAC for GOM haddock. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent the immediate closure of the GOM Haddock Trimester TAC Area. This would be contrary to the regulatory requirement and would increase the magnitude of the Trimester 1 closure and the likelihood that the common pool fishery would exceed its annual quota of GOM haddock. Any overage of the Trimester 1 or Trimester 2 TACs are deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC, and any overage of the annual quota would be deducted from common pool's quota for the next fishing year, to the detriment of this stock. This could undermine conservation and management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Fishermen expect these closures to occur in a timely way to prevent overages and their payback requirements. Overages of the trimester or annual common pool quota could cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery as a result of overage paybacks deducted from a future trimester or fishing year.