Federal Register Vol. 83, No.130,

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes amendments to regulations used to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Part 906 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) locally administers the Order and is comprised of growers and handlers of Texas citrus operating within the production area.

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

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

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

This proposed rule would remove five containers from the list of authorized containers under the Order and would add seven new containers to the list. This action would also modify the descriptions of two authorized containers. The Committee recommended these changes to align the Order's container regulations with current industry practices. The Committee unanimously recommended the changes at a meeting on June 8, 2017.

Section 906.40(d) of the Order authorizes the issuance of regulations to fix the size, weight, capacity, dimensions, or pack of the container or containers which may be used in the packaging, transportation, sale, shipment, or other handling of fruit. Section 906.340 provides that no handler shall handle any variety of oranges or grapefruit grown in the production area unless such fruit is packed in one of the containers specified under the Order. This section also specifies a detailed list of the containers currently authorized under the Order. In addition, this section allows the Committee to approve the use of other types and sizes of containers for testing for research purposes.

The Committee reviewed the containers listed in § 906.340 and compared them to the containers being utilized throughout the industry. This process included surveying handlers to determine which containers were being used. As a result, the Committee determined five of the authorized containers were no longer being used to pack Texas oranges or grapefruit.

The Committee also reviewed the list of experimental containers that had been approved for testing purposes. Seven of the experimental containers have been widely accepted throughout the Texas citrus industry and are being used to pack and ship Texas citrus. As a result of the review, the Committee voted to remove the five containers that were no longer being used from the list of authorized containers and add the seven experimental containers to § 906.340.

The Committee also discussed that while the description in § 906.340(a)(1)(ii) of the closed fully telescopic fiberboard carton with approximate inside dimensions of 161/2 by 103/4 by 91/2 inches is correct, this container is commonly known throughout the Texas citrus industry as a standard carton. Consequently, for clarification purposes, the Committee voted to add the words “Standard Carton” to this container description.

Further, the Committee noted that in § 906.340(a)(1)(iv) poly or mesh bags can be used to pack oranges and grapefruit to a capacity of 5, 8, 10, or 18 pounds of fruit, but that only oranges can be packed in the 4-pound bags. During the discussion, Committee members agreed handlers should also be allowed to ship grapefruit in 4-pound bags. Thus, the Committee voted to update the description to allow for the packing of both oranges and grapefruit in poly or mesh bags having a capacity of 4 pounds.

The Committee believes these proposed changes would reflect the containers being utilized throughout the industry and would align the regulations with current industry practices.

Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including oranges, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. As this rule changes the container requirements under the domestic handling regulations, no corresponding change to the import regulations is required.

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

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

There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2016-17 season was approximately $16 per carton, and total shipments were 7.6 million cartons. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers (13), and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of 9.4 million, which is greater than $7,500,000. ($16 per carton times 7.6 million cartons equals $121.6 million, divided by 13 equals 9.4 million per handler.) Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers may be classified as large business entities.

In addition, based on NASS information, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2016-17 season was approximately $9.35 per carton. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, the number of producers (170) and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of $418,000, which is less than $750,000. ($9.35 per carton times 7.6 million cartons equals $71.06 million, divided by 170 equals $418,000 per producer.) Thus, the majority of Texas citrus producers may be classified as small entities.

This proposed rule would revise the container requirements established under the Order. This rule would remove five containers from the list of authorized containers and add seven new containers to the list. This action would also update one container to allow handlers to use it to pack oranges and grapefruit, and would modify the description of another container to indicate it is the standard container used by the industry. These changes would align the list of authorized containers with current industry needs and practices. This rule would revise § 906.340. Authority for these changes is provided in § 906.40.

It is not anticipated that this proposed rule would impose additional costs on handlers or growers, regardless of size. The containers that would be removed from the list of authorized containers are no longer being used by the industry. This rule would provide an additional container for packing grapefruit, clarify the description for one container, and adjust the container regulations to better reflect current industry practices. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh orange and grapefruit growers and handlers, regardless of size.

The Committee considered alternatives to this action, including making no changes to the list of authorized containers. However, it was determined that making the recommended changes would provide an up-to-date list of containers currently being used by the Texas citrus industry. Therefore, the Committee rejected this alternative.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry, and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 8, 2017, meeting was a public meeting, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

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

A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is proposed to be amended as follows:

This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes amendments to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 981, as amended (7 CFR part 981), regulating the handling of almonds grown in California. Part 981 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Board locally administers the Order and is comprised of almond growers and handlers operating within California.

Section 608c(17) of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorizes amendment of the Order through this informal rulemaking action. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will consider comments received in response to this proposed rule and, based on all the information available, will determine if the Order amendments are warranted. If AMS determines amendment of the Order is warranted, a subsequent proposed rule and notice of referendum would be issued, and growers would be allowed to vote for or against the proposed Order amendments. AMS would then issue a final rule effectuating any amendments approved by growers in the referendum.

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

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This proposed rule shall not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or supersede any State program covering almonds grown in California.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.

Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 8c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The amendment of section 8c(17) of the Act and additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on its consideration of the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.

AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendments proposed are not unduly complex, and the nature of the proposed amendments is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the Order. A discussion of the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities is discussed later in the “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” section of this proposed rule.

The proposed amendments were unanimously recommended by the Board following deliberations at a public meeting held on December 4, 2017. The proposed rule would amend the Order by: (1) Changing the nomination deadline for Board nominees from January 20 to April 1, the deadline for presenting nominees to USDA for selection from February 20 to June 1, and the start of the term of office from March 1 to August 1; (2) adding the ability to propose future revisions to Board nomination methods by developing regulations through informal rulemaking; and (3) adding the ability to propose future revisions to the start date of the Board's term of office by developing regulations through informal rulemaking.

In addition to these proposals, AMS proposes to make any additional changes to the Order as may be necessary to conform to any amendment that may result from this rulemaking action.

Section 981.32 provides that, each year, nominees for open Board member and alternate member positions shall be chosen by ballot delivered to the Board. In support of this nomination process, § 981.32 further provides that on or before January 20 of each year, the Board shall mail to all handlers and growers, other than the cooperative(s) of record, the required ballots with all necessary voting information; and that nominees chosen by the Board in this manner shall be submitted by the Board to the USDA Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) on or before February 20 of each year. If a nomination for any Board member or alternate is not received by the Secretary on or before February 20, the Secretary may select, without nomination, such member or alternate from persons belonging to the group to be represented.

Section 981.33 provides that the term of office of Board members and alternate members selected by the Secretary pursuant to § 981.32 shall begin on March 1.

This proposal would amend § 981.32 by changing the nomination deadline for Board nominees from January 20 to April 1 and the deadline for presenting nominees for selection to the Secretary from February 20 to June 1. It would also amend § 981.33 by changing the start of the term of office from March 1 to August 1. A clarifying change would also be made to § 981.33 to remove language related to a previous amendment to the Order that is no longer needed.

Changing the two nomination process dates from January 20 and February 20 to April 1 and June 1, respectively, could provide several benefits. First, preparing ballots to mail in January is very challenging for the Board because it prepares for and hosts major industry activities in December, including a Board meeting and a large, multi-day almond conference that is held at an off-site location. The Board office is also closed the last week of December every year. Because of these year-end activities, it is difficult for the Board to prepare for a nomination mailing in January. Changing the nomination dates would allow the Board sufficient time to prepare nominations for mailing.

In addition, the Board believes that more industry members might participate in the nomination process if it occurred later in the calendar year. This is because many industry members are busy with or returning from winter holiday season activities in December and January and, therefore, may be less likely to participate in nomination proceedings that are occurring at that time.

In addition to the challenges the Board faces in meeting the January nomination deadline, there is currently only one month between the deadline for mailing ballots (January 20) and the date that the Board must process returned ballots and prepare a nomination package to submit to USDA (February 20). In addition to this short timeframe, there are only 9 or 10 days between the February 20 deadline by which the Board must submit nominations to USDA and the March 1 term of office start date. This short timeframe does not provide adequate time for the nominations to be processed and new member selections to be made prior to the new term of office. The proposed changes would provide 60 days between the April 1 and June 1 nomination process deadline dates, compared to the existing 30 days between the current dates of January 20 and February 20. The proposed changes would also provide 60 days between the June 1 deadline for the Board to submit the nominations to USDA and the new August 1 term of office start date, compared to the existing 10 days between the current dates of February 20 and March 1. Extending the times between these dates would improve the overall preparation and processing of nominations.

The proposal to change the term of office start date would improve Board cohesiveness because the Board would then operate on the same timeline as the crop year and the Board's committees. The Order's crop year is defined in § 981.19 as August 1 through July 31. The Board is responsible for all program planning and budgeting for each crop year. However, with the current term of office beginning on March 1, Board members responsible for annual program planning and budget recommendations leave office prior to the end of the crop year; conversely, new Board members also begin serving in the middle of a crop year. Starting the term of office on August 1 would allow Board members to administer activities for an entire crop year as well as provide valuable insight related to the next crop year's activities. In addition, changing the start of the term of office to August 1 would align with the appointment of individuals to various committees that operate under the Board, which occurs at the beginning of each crop year.

Changing the term of office start date from March 1 to August 1 would require current members and alternates to serve a few additional months, beyond the original March 1 start date, until their respective successors were selected and qualified pursuant to § 981.33(a).

These changes to the nomination and term of office dates that appear in two sections of the Order (§§ 981.32 and 981.33) are being proposed as a single amendment because of the relation of the nomination process to the start date of the term of office; that is, if the nomination process dates are changed to occur later in the calendar year (on April 1 and June 1, respectively, as described above), then the start date of the term of office would also need to change from March 1 to a date that would follow the new nomination process dates. As noted above, the Board recommended the term of office start date be changed to August 1.

Section 981.32 provides the methods by which nominations for open Board member and alternate member positions shall be chosen, including the dates by which (1) ballots and voting information shall be mailed by the Board to all handlers and growers, other than cooperative(s) of record, and (2) nominations shall be submitted by the Board to the Secretary. Changes to these dates are included in Proposal 1 above (to change from January 20 to April 1 and from February 20 to June 1, respectively).

This proposal would change § 981.32 by adding authority to modify the nomination methods described in paragraph (a) through the future development of regulations using the informal rulemaking process. Currently, changes to the nomination methods require formal rulemaking. The Board would still be required to discuss future proposed changes at its meetings and to vote on whether to recommend changes to USDA. If amended, future changes would still require notice be given to the public with an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed changes. However, it is anticipated that this proposed amendment would streamline future changes to the Order by allowing such changes to be proposed and finalized through the use of informal rulemaking.

Section 981.33 provides that the term of office of Board members and alternate members selected by the Secretary pursuant to § 981.32 shall begin on March 1. A change to this term of office start date is included in Proposal 1 above (to change from March 1 to August 1).

This proposal would change § 981.33 by adding authority to modify the term of office start date through the future development of regulations using the informal rulemaking process. Currently, changes to the term of office start date require formal rulemaking. The Board would still be required to discuss a future proposed change at its meetings and to vote on whether to recommend a change to USDA. If amended, a future change to the term of office start date would still require notice be given to the public with an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed change. However, it is anticipated that this proposed amendment would streamline future changes to the Order by allowing such changes to be proposed and finalized through the use of informal rulemaking.

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

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

There are approximately 6,800 almond growers in the production area and approximately 100 almond handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported in its 2012 Agricultural Census that there were 6,841 almond farms in the production area (California), of which 6,204 had bearing acres. The following computation provides an estimate of the proportion of agricultural producers (farms) and agricultural service firms (handlers) that would be considered small under the SBA definitions.

The NASS Census data indicates that out of the 6,204 California farms with bearing acres of almonds, 4,471 (72 percent) have fewer than 100 bearing acres.

For the almond industry's most recently reported crop year (2016), NASS reported an average yield of 2,280 pounds per acre and a season average grower price of $2.44 per pound. A 100-acre farm with an average yield of 2,280 pounds per acre would produce about 228,000 pounds of almonds. At $2.44 per pound, that farm's production would be valued at $556,320. The Census of Agriculture indicates that the majority of California's almond farms are smaller than 100 acres; therefore, it could be concluded that the majority of growers had annual receipts from the sale of almonds in 2016-17 of less than $556,320, which is below the SBA threshold of $750,000. Thus, over 70 percent of California's almond growers would be classified as small entities according to SBA's definition.

To estimate the proportion of almond handlers that would be considered small businesses, it was assumed that the unit value per shelled pound of almonds exported in a particular year could serve as a representative almond price at the handler level. A unit value for a commodity is the value of exports divided by the quantity. Data from the Global Agricultural Trade System database of USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service showed that the value of almond exports from August 2016 to July 2017 (combining shelled and inshell almonds) was $4.072 billion. The quantity of almond exports over that time period was 1.406 billion pounds, combining shelled exports and the shelled equivalent of inshell exports. Dividing the export value by the quantity yields a unit value of $2.90 per pound. Subtracting this figure from the NASS 2016 estimate of season average grower price per pound ($2.44) yields $0.46 per pound as a representative grower-handler margin. Applying the $2.90 representative handler price per pound to 2016-17 handler shipment quantities provided by the Board showed that approximately 40 percent of California's almond handlers shipped almonds valued under $7,500,000 during the 2016-17 crop year and would therefore be considered small entities according to the SBA definition.

The proposed amendments would change the dates associated with the process to nominate Board members and alternates as well as the start of the term of office of Board members. The proposed amendments would also add authority to allow future revisions of the nomination methods and term of office dates through the development of regulations using informal rulemaking. These amendments would improve the nomination process, align the term of office with the crop year and appointment of Board committees, and streamline the process for making similar changes in the future.

The Board's proposed amendments were unanimously recommended at a public meeting of the Board on December 4, 2017. The proposed amendments are administrative in nature; therefore, if any or all of the proposals are approved in referendum, there should be no economic impact on growers or handlers. Changing the nomination dates could encourage greater industry participation on the Board because the timing of the current nominations occurs immediately after the winter holiday season, when many industry members are just returning to their operations and may be less inclined to participate. The changes to the nomination process dates and the term of office start date are expected to streamline and improve operations of the Board. Adding authority to allow the development of regulations through informal rulemaking for making future changes to the nomination methods and term of office start date could reduce the time it takes to implement the changes, thereby allowing the Board to function more effectively.

Alternatives to the proposals, including recommending no changes, were considered. However, the Board believes that changing the nomination process dates and term of office start date, as well as adding authority to make similar changes in the future by creating regulations through informal rulemaking, will be beneficial to the industry by enhancing Board operations and effectiveness.

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

This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California almond handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

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

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

The Board's meeting was widely publicized throughout the almond industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the December 4, 2017, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals.

Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the Order, including comments on the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.

Following analysis of any comments received on the amendments proposed in this proposed rule, AMS will evaluate all available information and determine whether to proceed. If appropriate, a proposed rule and notice of referendum would be issued, and growers would be provided the opportunity to vote for or against the proposed amendments. Information about the referendum, including dates and voter eligibility requirements, would be published in a future issue of the Federal Register. A final rule would then be issued to effectuate any amendments favored by growers participating in the referendum.

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

The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of Marketing Order 981; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

1. Marketing Order 981 as hereby proposed to be amended and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

2. Marketing Order 981 as hereby proposed to be amended regulates the handling of almonds grown in California and is applicable only to persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the Marketing Order;

3. Marketing Order 981 as hereby proposed to be amended is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several marketing orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

4. Marketing Order 981 as hereby proposed to be amended prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of almonds produced or packed in the production area; and

5. All handling of almonds produced or packed in the production area as defined in Marketing Order 981 is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to these proposals. Any comments received on the amendments proposed in this proposed rule will be analyzed, and if AMS determines to proceed based on all the information presented, a grower referendum would be conducted to determine grower support for the proposed amendments. If appropriate, a final rule would then be issued to effectuate the amendments favored by growers participating in the referendum.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 981 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.

This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This action would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 1971 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6306), a person subject to the Order may file a petition with USDA stating that the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order is not in accordance with the law and request a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that district courts of the United States in any district in which such person is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, have jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition if a complaint for this purpose is filed within 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. AMS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by RFA, because it only adjusts representation on the Board to reflect changes in production levels that have occurred since the Board was last reapportioned in 2015. As such, these changes will not have a significant impact on persons subject to the program.

There are an estimated 515,008 soybean producers and an estimated 10,000 first purchasers who collect the assessment, most of whom would be considered small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.201]. SBA defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in 7 CFR part 1220 were previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093.

The Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) provides for the establishment of a coordinated program of promotion and research designed to strengthen the soybean industry's position in the marketplace, and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for soybeans and soybean products. The program is financed by an assessment of 0.5 percent of the net market price of soybeans sold by producers. Pursuant to the Act, an Order was made effective July 9, 1991. The Order established an initial Board with 60 members. For purposes of establishing the Board, the United States was divided into 31 States and geographical units. Representation on the Board from each unit was determined by the level of production in each unit. The initial Board was appointed on July 11, 1991. The Board is composed of soybean producers.

Section 1220.201(c) of the Order provides that at the end of each 3-year period, the Board shall review soybean production levels in the geographic units throughout the United States. The Board may recommend to the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) modifications in the levels of production necessary to determine Board membership for each unit.

Section 1220.201(d) of the Order provides that at the end of each 3-year period, the Secretary must review the volume of production of each unit and adjust the boundaries of any unit and the number of Board members from each such unit as necessary to conform with the criteria set forth in § 1220.201(e): (1) To the extent practicable, States with annual average soybean production of less than 3 million bushels shall be grouped into geographically contiguous units, each of which has a combined production level equal to or greater than 3 million bushels, and each such group shall be entitled to at least one member on the Board; (2) units with at least 3 million bushels, but fewer than 15 million bushels shall be entitled to one board member; (3) units with 15 million bushels or more but fewer than 70 million bushels shall be entitled to two Board members; (4) units with 70 million bushels or more but fewer than 200 million bushels shall be entitled to three Board members; and (5) units with 200 million bushels or more shall be entitled to four Board members.

The Board was last reapportioned in 2015. The total Board membership increased from 70 to 73 members, with Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin each gaining one additional member. The final rule was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 63909) on October 22, 2015. This change was effective with the 2016 appointments.

This proposed rule would increase total membership on the Board from 73 to 78, based on production data for years 2013-2017 (excluding the crops in years in which production was the highest and in which production was the lowest) as reported by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service. This change would not affect the number of geographical units.

This proposed rule would adjust representation on the Board as follows:

Board adjustments as proposed by this rulemaking would become effective, if adopted, with the 2019 appointment process.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that Title 7, part 1220 be amended as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(1). Under that section, the FAA is charged with, among other things, prescribing minimum safety standards for aircraft engines used in the flight of civil aircraft in air commerce. This proposed rule is within the scope of that authority because it updates existing regulations for certification of aircraft turbofan engines.

This proposed rule would create an additional bird ingestion test for turbofan engines. The new requirements would be added to 14 CFR 33.76, which covers engine testing for bird ingestion. This new test would ensure that engines can ingest the largest medium flocking bird (MFB) required by the existing rule, into the engine core at climb conditions. If the engine design is such that no bird material will be ingested into the engine core 1 during the test at climb conditions, then the proposed rule would require a different test at approach conditions.

The proposed test consists of firing at the engine core one MFB, equivalent to the largest bird currently required by § 33.76(c) for the engine inlet throat area of the engine being tested, using either the following climb or descent testing conditions for an engine:

(1) Testing for bird ingestion on climb. The test bird would be fired at 250-knots, with the mechanical engine fan speed set at the lowest expected speed when climbing through 3,000 feet altitude above ground level (AGL). After bird ingestion, the proposal would require that the engine comply with post-test run-on requirements similar to those in existing § 33.76(d)(5), large flocking bird (LFB) test, except that, depending on the climb thrust of the engine, less than 50 percent takeoff thrust may be allowed during the first minute after bird ingestion.

(2) Testing for bird ingestion on descent. If the applicant determines that no bird mass will enter the core during the test at the 250-knots/climb condition, then the applicant would be required to perform an alternative test to that described in the paragraph (1). For this test, the bird would be fired at 200-knots, with the engine mechanical fan speed set at the lowest fan speed expected when descending through 3,000 feet altitude AGL on approach to landing. Applicants would be required to comply with post-test run-on requirements that are the same as the final six (6) minutes of the existing § 33.76(d)(5) post-test run-on requirements for large flocking birds (LFB). This is based on the assumption that the airplane will already be lined up with the runway.

The FAA estimates the annualized costs of this proposed rule to be $4 million, or $52 million over 27 years (at a seven percent present discount rate).2 The FAA estimates the annualized benefits of $5 million, or $61 million over 27 years. The following table summarizes the benefits and costs of this proposed rule.

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0547; Product Identifier 2017-NM-091-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-04R1, dated May 26, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include replacement of clamshell coupling bonding wires, fuel couplings and associated sleeves and rework (repair, replace, or blend, as applicable) of fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules, and ferrule o-ring flanges. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0547.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C, dated April 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for inspections of the existing clamshell coupling bonding wires, fuel couplings, and associated sleeves for certain criteria (wear and damage, including discoloration, worn coating, scuffing and grooves) and replacement. This service information also describes procedures for inspections of the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules, and ferrule o-ring flanges for damage and wear, and rework. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0585; Product Identifier 2018-NM-070-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2018-08R1, dated March 2, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0585.

We reviewed the following service information:

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-26-004, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-011, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-5003, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-26-6003, Revision 01, dated February 15, 2018.

This service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the connections between the FIREX squib wire harness connectors and the FIREX bottle connectors to determine whether the connectors are installed correctly, and installation of split ring lanyards on the FIREX squib wire harness connectors. This service information also describes procedures for re-connecting incorrectly installed connectors to the appropriate mating connectors and an operational test of the fire extinguishing system. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

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

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 358 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0553; Product Identifier 2017-NM-138-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-25, dated July 31, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes, Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions include revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate MRB tasks for general visual inspections of the windshield moisture seal (for signs of cracking, erosion, wear, or other damage), re-torqueing the windshield heater terminal lugs, applying sealant to the windshield heater screw heads, doing a chemical cleaning of the wiring and components, doing a general visual inspection of the wiring and components for signs of cracking, erosion, wear, or other damage, doing an operational test of the pilot's and co-pilot's windshield heating system, and repair if necessary.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0553.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-30-41, Revision A, dated March 24, 2017. This service information describes procedures for re-torqueing the windshield heater terminal lugs and applying Humisel coating to the screw heads of the windshield heater, doing a chemical cleaning and general visual inspection of the wiring and components, and doing an operational test of the windshield heating system.

Bombardier has also issued the following service information, which describes airworthiness limitation tasks for a general visual inspection of the windshield moisture seal. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

• de Havilland Dash 8 Series 100 Maintenance Task Card, Task Number 5610/01, “General Visual Inspection of the Windshield Moisture Seal,” dated August 5, 2017.

• de Havilland Dash 8 Series 200 Maintenance Task Card, Task Number 5610/01, “General Visual Inspection of the Windshield Moisture Seal,” dated August 5, 2017.

• de Havilland Dash 8 Series 300 Maintenance Task Card, Task Number 5610/01, “General Visual Inspection of the Windshield Moisture Seal,” dated March 15, 2017.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The MCAI calls for revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating certain temporary revisions (TRs) into the Program Support Manual (PSM). This proposed AD instead calls for incorporating certain task cards into the PSM. We have determined that these task cards address the unsafe condition in the same manner that the TRs would.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 63 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

We have also determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0586; Product Identifier 2017-NM-151-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-30, dated August 30, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions also include an inspection of the emergency exit door ball bearings for seal damage and loss of lubricant and revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0586.

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Service Bulletin 8-52-65, dated July 26, 2017, which describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the forward right-hand type 1 emergency exit door ball bearings for corrosion, seal damage, and loss of lubricant; applying CIC; and replacing emergency exit door ball bearings if necessary.

• Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Task 5220/12 (“Servicing of Forward RH Emergency Exit Mechanisms”), dated March 15, 2017, of the DHC-8-300 Series Maintenance Program Support Manual (PSM) 1-83-7, which describes procedures for servicing the forward right-hand emergency exit door mechanisms.

• Temporary Revision (TR) 54-042, dated April 10, 2018, to the DHC-8-300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), which describes procedures for servicing the type 1 emergency exit door mechanisms.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

The MCAI requires the incorporation of MRB Task 5220/12 (“Servicing of Forward RH Emergency Exit Mechanisms”) into the maintenance program. That task refers to the AMM for certain procedures, which have been updated. We understand that the MCAI does not require the updated AMM procedures because, unlike U.S. operators, Canadian operators are already required to use the most current AMM procedures. Therefore, this proposed AD would also require the incorporation of Bombardier TR 54-042, dated April 10, 2018, which includes the updated AMM procedures.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 16 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0551; Product Identifier 2018-NM-023-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-38, dated December 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0551.

Bombardier, Inc. has issued CRJ Series Regional Jet Temporary Revision (TR) MRB-0059, dated March 20, 2015, to Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), Part 1, CSP B-053. The service information describes an airworthiness limitation task for a detailed inspection for damage to the protective coating and for corrosion on the piston/axle of the MLG. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 530 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0580; Product Identifier 2018-NM-025-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

We have received a report indicating that the primary latch securing the PSU to the airplane structure is not adequate for the higher loads experienced during survivable accidents. In addition, there is no secondary means of retention (lanyards) for the PSU to the airplane structure. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the PSU becoming detached and falling into the cabin, which could lead to passenger injuries and impede egress during an evacuation.

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1728, dated October 10, 2016. The service information describes procedures for installing lanyard assemblies on the PSU and life vest panels.

We reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-25-1758 RB, dated November 8, 2017. The service information describes procedures for installing lanyard assemblies on the PSU.

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1728, dated October 10, 2016, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions identified in the Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-25-1758 RB, dated November 8, 2017, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0580.

The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept into Boeing service bulletins.

In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the development of a new process in which the service information more clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition in the “Accomplishment Instructions.” The new process results in a Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 227 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0581; Product Identifier 2018-NM-029-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

We have received a report that showed a non-compliance exists on some in-service galley attendant seat fitting installations. This condition, if not addressed, could result in flight attendant seats failing in a high-G crash, resulting in potential injury to flight attendants and consequent inability of the flight attendants to assist with passenger evacuation in a timely manner.

We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0649, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017. The service information describes procedures for modifications for galley mounted seat fittings. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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

This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0649, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017, described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information,” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0581.

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-25-0649, Revision 1, dated October 6, 2017, specifies the compliance time as 1,875 days. For this proposed AD, we specified the compliance time as 6 years. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 50 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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

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

This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA.

Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that air quality meets the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the Act and they currently address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The state's air regulations are contained in its SIP, which is basically a clean air plan. Each state is responsible for developing SIPs to demonstrate how the NAAQS will be achieved, maintained, and enforced. The SIP must be submitted to EPA for approval and any changes a state makes to the approved SIP also must be submitted to the EPA for approval.

The Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment submitted revisions for approval by EPA on February 14, 2017. The submittal addresses air pollution regulations and control strategies adopted and codified in the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) under Title 252 (DEQ), Chapter 100 (Air Pollution Control), Subchapter 2 and Appendix Q—Incorporation by Reference; Subchapter 5—Registration, Emission Inventory and Annual Operating Fees; Subchapter 13—Open Burning; Subchapter 17—Incinerators; Subchapter 25—Visible Emissions and Particulates; Subchapter 31—Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds; Appendix E—Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards; and Appendix F—Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA has proposed separate action to address the February 14, 2017, submission of revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 13, 17, 25, 31, and Appendices E and F. See the rulemaking docket EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145. In this action we are only addressing the February 14, 2017, submitted revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters 2, 5, and Appendix Q.

The accompanying Technical Support Document for this action includes a detailed analysis of the submitted revisions to the Oklahoma SIP. With the exception of Subchapter 5 discussed below, the revisions are minor or non-substantive in nature and do not change the intent of the originally approved SIP requirements. Our analysis indicates that the SIP revision package submitted on February 14, 2017, has been developed in accordance with the CAA and the State provided reasonable notice and public hearing. The revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapter 2 and Appendix Q update the incorporation by reference dates so that the Oklahoma SIP maintains consistency with federal requirements. The revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapter 5 substantively revise the emission inventory reporting requirements. The ODEQ is revising the reporting schedule for sources with permits by rule to align with the Three-Year Cycle Inventory of the National Emission Inventory specified in 40 CFR 51.30(b). ODEQ is clarifying that permit exempt and de minimis facilities as defined in OAC 252:100, Subchapter 7 are not subject to emission inventory reporting requirements unless annual emissions from the facility exceed the federal emission thresholds listed in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix A. The ODEQ is also providing the ability for the Director to require emission inventory reporting from any facility with the potential to emit any regulated air pollutant if the data is needed for program planning or compliance with State or Federal rules, regulations, standards or requirements. The EPA has determined it is appropriate to approve revisions to the Oklahoma SIP because these revisions maintain consistency with federal requirements and will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirements.

We are proposing to approve revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that revise the incorporation by reference dates for federal requirements and update the emission inventory reporting requirements. We have determined that the revisions submitted on February 14, 2017, were developed in accordance with the CAA and EPA's regulations. Therefore, under section 110 of the Act, the EPA proposes approval of the following revisions to the Oklahoma SIP:

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on April 25, 2013; effective July 1, 2013;

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on June 19, 2014; effective September 12, 2014;

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on June 8, 2015; effective September 15, 2015;

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on June 9, 2016; effective September 15, 2016;

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-2 adopted on June 19, 2014; effective September 12, 2014;

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-2.1 adopted on June 19, 2014; effective September 12, 2014;

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-2.1 adopted June 9, 2016; effective September 15, 2016; and

• Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-3 adopted on June 19, 2014; effective September 12, 2014.

In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Oklahoma regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please contact Adina Wiley for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On July 24, 2017, the New Hampshire Air Resources Division (ARD) submitted a revision to its SIP consisting of an order establishing reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the Diacom Corporation. On June 22, 2017, the New Hampshire ARD submitted a SIP revision that requested removal from the SIP of a previously approved RACT order for the Kalwall Corporation. On November 14, 2003, the New Hampshire ARD submitted a number of SIP revision requests to EPA, including a request to revise its set of definitions used within its air pollution control regulations. We are proposing to approve these three SIP revision requests for the reasons stated below.

On July 24, 2017, the New Hampshire ARD submitted to EPA as a SIP revision request order RO-0002 establishing RACT requirements to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the Diacom Corporation located in Amherst, New Hampshire. The Diacom Corporation requested a source-specific RACT order for VOCs for an adhesives process that requires use of a high solvent-based product necessary to obtain an extremely thin, mono-molecular layer of adhesive onto fabrics used in the production of diaphragms for the aerospace, automotive, medical, and food processing industries. Diacom's request included a technical justification and an evaluation of capture and control device technologies that were evaluated. No cost effective capture and control technologies were uncovered from the evaluation. New Hampshire reviewed and concurred with the facilities request, and on June 28, 2017, issued Order No. RO-0002 to the Diacom Corporation. Order No. RO-0002 includes a 15 tons per year cap for VOC emissions, a VOC content limit for adhesives used by the facility, requirements for how the adhesives shall be applied, work practice standards, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We are proposing approval of the order into the New Hampshire SIP because it is consistent with CAA requirements for VOC RACT and with New Hampshire's Chapter Env-A 1200, VOC RACT regulation.

New Hampshire ARD previously submitted, and EPA previously approved, a VOC RACT order for the Kalwall Corporation. See 63 FR 11600, March 10, 1998. More recently, EPA approved a minor update to this order, referred to by NH ARD as order ARD-99-001, on November 5, 2012. See 77 FR 66388. Subsequently, NH ARD adopted VOC control requirements within Env-A 1200 that regulate the activity described within the previously approved VOC RACT order. On June 22, 2017, the NH ARD submitted a SIP revision requesting that the previously approved order for the Kalwall Corporation be removed from the New Hampshire SIP. New Hampshire's submittal indicated this request was made primarily because requirements within Env-A 1212, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts and Products, which EPA approved into the New Hampshire SIP on November 8, 2012 (77 FR 66922), cover all of the coating and adhesives emission limits contained within Kalwall's VOC RACT order. Therefore, New Hampshire ARD requested that the VOC RACT order issued to Kalwall Corporation be removed from the SIP. We are proposing approval of the State's request.

On November 14, 2003, the New Hampshire ARD submitted a number of SIP revision requests to EPA that included revisions to Env-A 101, Definitions. Although New Hampshire ARD subsequently withdrew the majority of the SIP revision requests made on November 14, 2003, the request to amend Env-A 101, Definitions, was not withdrawn, and we are proposing to approve that request within this action. The revision consists of the addition of definitions for the terms coal, consignment, crude oil, major fuel company, manufactured gas, and used oil, and minor revisions to the existing definitions for acute fuel shortage, blended fuel, conforming fuel, fuel supplier, and major fuel company. These revisions help to clarify the meaning of these terms as used within New Hampshire's air pollution control regulations and therefore we are proposing approval of them into the SIP-approved version of New Hampshire's Env-A 101, Definitions.

EPA is proposing to approve the New Hampshire SIP revision requests described above. The SIP revisions meet section 110(l) of the CAA because the revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference order RO-0002, dated June 28, 2017, issued to the Diacom Corporation, and the eleven definitions identified within section III of this proposal. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, WT Docket No. 18-120 DA 18-647, adopted on June 21, 2018 and released on June 21, 2018. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=advanced&daNo=18-647. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).

Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number, WT Docket No. 18-120.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, Annapolis MD 20701.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 888-835-5322 (tty).

1. By this Order, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau grants, in part, two separate requests to extend the deadlines for comments and reply comments in the above-captioned rulemaking proceeding.

2. On May 10, 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to allow more efficient and effective use of the 2.5 GHz band by providing greater flexibility to current Educational Broadband Service (EBS) licensees as well as providing new opportunities for additional entities to obtain unused 2.5 GHz spectrum to facilitate improved access to next generation wireless broadband, including 5G. On June 7, 2018, the summary of the 2.5 GHz NPRM was published in the Federal Register, which established a comment deadline of July 9, 2018, and a reply comment deadline of August 6, 2018.

3. The National EBS Association and the Catholic Technology Network (NEBSA/CTN) have jointly requested an extension of time for the filing of comments in the proceeding. They request that the filing dates in this proceeding be extended to August 23, 2018, for comments, and September 20, 2018, for reply comments. NEBSA and CTN welcome the Commission's decision to open the proceeding to license unassigned spectrum and note that the 2.5 GHz NPRM also “raises a host of other very significant issues about nearly all aspects of the EBS band.” They argue, “By extending the comment cycle for an additional 45 days, the Commission can ensure that the EBS community has an adequate opportunity to evaluate and respond to the important issues raised in the” 2.5 GHz NPRM.

4. The Joint Stakeholders have also requested an extension of time for the filing of comments in the proceeding. They request that the filing dates in this proceeding be extended for 60 days. The Joint Stakeholders welcome the “Commission's decision to initiate this rulemaking, which has the potential to (1) expand educational broadband benefits to more students, schools, and families; (2) foster broadband deployment in rural areas, including on tribal lands, many of which have limited or no service today; and (3) accelerate the deployment of 5G wireless networks to more Americans. They argue that the “issues raised by the NPRM are as complex as they are important” and that “complex geospatial analysis is required . . .” In addition, they allege that this proceeding is not routine, and that the current timing falls during the summer which is particularly difficult for schools and educators.

5. As set forth in section 1.46 of the Commission's rules, the Commission's policy is that extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking proceedings shall not be routinely granted. In this case, however, the Commission finds that the number, scope, and importance of the questions asked in the 2.5 GHz NPRM warrant a partial extension of the comment and reply comment deadlines. While NEBSA and CTN seek an extension of 45 days, and the Joint Stakeholders seek an extension of 60 days, the Commission believes that an extension of 30 days will adequately serve the public interest by providing interested parties additional time to develop more full and complete responses to the 2.5 GHz NPRM and promote a more comprehensive record, without resulting in undue delay. Thus, comments are now due August 8, 2018 and reply comments due by September 7, 2018.

6. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, the motions for extension of time filed NEBSA/CTN and the Joint Stakeholders are granted in part, and otherwise denied. The deadline for filing comments in this proceeding is extended to August 8, 2018, and the deadline for filing reply comments is extended to September 7, 2018.

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3095, released June 25, 2018. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5.U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

Subject: Connect America Fund, Report and Order, FCC 18-37, published at 83 FR 18948, May 1, 2018, in WC Docket No. 10-90. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). As a member of ICCAT, the United States implements binding ICCAT recommendations pursuant to ATCA, which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

Regulations implemented under the authority of ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act governing the harvest of BFT and NALB by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) subdivides the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT quota among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), as amended by Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), and provides the annual BFT quota adjustment process. Section 635.27(e) implements the ICCAT-recommended U.S. NALB quota and provides the annual NALB quota adjustment process. Section 635.20(c) implements the size limit restrictions applicable to BFT, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna. 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 quotas.

Since 1982, ICCAT has recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of western Atlantic BFT for contracting parties fishing on the stock, and since 1991, ICCAT has recommended specific quotas within that TAC for the United States and other contracting parties. Since 1999, ICCAT has managed western BFT in accordance with a 20-year rebuilding program adopted in 1998. Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted recommendations regarding the NALB fishery, including quotas for the major harvesters. In 2009, ICCAT established a NALB rebuilding program, including a TAC and several provisions to limit catches by contracting parties (for major and minor harvesters). ICCAT sets BFT and NALB conservation and management measures, including TACs, following consideration of the latest stock assessment information and management advice provided by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), ICCAT's scientific body.

Through this action, NMFS proposes to adjust the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota and subquotas and the annual U.S. baseline NALB quota to implement the new quotas adopted in 2017 by ICCAT as required by ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS also is proposing minor modifications to the Atlantic tunas size limit regulations to address retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna damaged by shark bites. This change would allow retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna for which the otherwise-required measurement to the fork of the tail may not be possible, provided that the remainder of the fish meets the applicable minimum sizes. Minimum fish size regulations apply to Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna but this change would apply only to bigeye and yellowfin tunas. This change is not a result of ICCAT recommendations but rather clarifies the applicability of size limits to a situation that is not addressed by the current regulations. The clarification is included in this action for purposes of administrative efficiency and because it addresses Atlantic tunas management, like the other actions being implemented here. Finally, this action would modify regulations to update regulatory language on school BFT to reflect current ICCAT requirements.

NMFS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which analyze the anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of several alternatives for each of the major issues contained in this proposed rule. The list of alternatives and their analyses are provided in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and are not repeated here in their entirety. The effects of the changes related to retention of shark-bitten tunas are primarily economic and administrative in nature and thus are not analyzed in the draft EA. The effects of updating regulatory language on school BFT to reflect current ICCAT requirements are administrative in nature and thus are not analyzed in the draft EA.

A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

The SCRS took a substantially different approach in 2017 from prior years in evaluating and providing management advice for the western BFT stock. In the past, significant uncertainties in some population characteristics resulted in assessments with very divergent stock status estimates, creating serious challenges for management. In an effort to improve this situation, the SCRS moved away from assessing the western stock against biomass-based reference points and instead evaluated the stock and provided management advice based on fishing mortality rate-based reference points. The draft EA provides more detailed information about the differences between the previous stock assessments' approach and the current approach, focusing on the last (2014) stock assessment, to offer more context and information.

In past western BFT stock assessments and updates, the SCRS presented status and projection information based on two divergent stock recruitment potential scenarios (low and high) and stated that it had insufficient evidence to favor either scenario over the other. Generally, under the low recruitment scenario, it was assumed that the stock is not as productive as it once was (i.e., prior to the 1970s) and therefore the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is fairly low, and the stock is considered rebuilt. Under the high recruitment scenario, it was assumed that the stock could be much more productive as it recovers and MSY is much higher. However, under this scenario, the stock could not be rebuilt within the rebuilding period, even with no catch. The SCRS' findings did not permit specification of a single MSY level for management purposes. Given the conflicting scenarios, ICCAT selected a TAC that would ensure continued stock growth under either scenario. Following the 2014 stock assessment, NMFS applied domestic stock status determination criteria and concluded that the status of the stock should be changed from “overfished and subject to overfishing” to “overfished and no longer subject to overfishing,” indicating an improved stock status under either scenario.

The SCRS next conducted a stock assessment for western Atlantic bluefin tuna in 2017. The 2017 stock assessment report stated that, despite considerable efforts to improve the historical data for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock and resolve assessment uncertainties, the SCRS has not gained any further insights into future recruitment potential. The assessment concluded that any additional improvements to the historical data are likely to be rather modest in scope and the SCRS expects such insights to “remain elusive.” Moreover, the SCRS stated that the ICCAT Convention objective of stabilizing the stock near the biomass necessary to produce MSY (BMSY) by its very nature tends to prevent the stock from reaching the high and low biomass levels needed to provide adequate contrast for estimating the spawner-recruit relationship in this situation, which may help resolve the divergent recruitment potential scenarios. The SCRS indicated that it is not possible to calculate biomass-based reference points (e.g., BMSY and the fishing mortality rate consistent with achieving MSY, FMSY) without additional knowledge (or making assumptions) about how future recruitment potential relates to spawning stock biomass. In other words, the SCRS continues to be unable to provide one BMSY and corresponding allowable fishing mortality rate that applies regardless of the stock's long-term recruitment potential. In light of the continued inability to set such biomass-based reference points and the unlikelihood of resolution in the near future, the SCRS decided to take a new approach to the stock assessment, focusing on fishing mortality rate-based reference points. The SCRS indicated that in other situations with stocks facing such uncertainties, several fishing mortality rate-based reference points have been recommended as proxies for FMSY as a strategy for effective stock management. A fishing mortality rate-based approach does not rely on or assume a stock-recruitment relationship but is derived from the yield-per-recruit curve. More detail about the F0.1 approach is provided in the draft EA. The SCRS stated in the assessment that it considers F0.1 to be a reasonable proxy for FMSY for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock and indicated that fishing consistently at F0.1 will, over the long-term, cause the stock to fluctuate around the corresponding long-term biomass (B0.1), whatever the future recruitment potential.

The SCRS advised that annual constant catches from 2018-2020 should not be greater than 2,500 metric tons (mt) as that would exceed the median yield associated with F0.1. A table showing the probability of avoiding overfishing for various constant TACs was included in the report. The SCRS noted that nearly all constant catch options shown (i.e., TACs greater than 1,000 mt) would result in an estimated decrease in biomass between 2018 and 2020; the percentage decrease being larger for the larger catches. For further detail, see pages 98 and 111 through 121 of the SCRS report at http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2017_SCRS_REP_ENG.pdf.

At its November 2017 meeting, after considering the SCRS advice, ICCAT adopted a recommendation for an interim conservation and management plan for western Atlantic BFT for 2018 through 2020 (ICCAT Recommendation 17-06). An interim approach was selected in light of the SCRS' new stock assessment approach and ICCAT's development of management procedures for the stock by 2020. Management procedures are a way to manage stocks in light of stock assessment and other scientific uncertainties and include use of stock monitoring, pre-agreed actions based on triggers, and evaluation to help ensure identified management objectives are achieved. See EA for more details. The Recommendation includes a TAC of 2,350 mt annually (i.e., an increase of approximately 17.5 percent) for each of 2018, 2019, and 2020. This TAC is within the SCRS-recommended range and provides a buffer from the top end of the range to help further account for identified stock assessment uncertainties. Relevant provisions of the Recommendation by ICCAT Amending the Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Rebuilding Program (Recommendation 16-08) were also maintained in Recommendation 17-06, such as those involving effort and capacity limits, the 10-percent limit on the amount of unused quota Contracting Parties may carry forward, minimum fish size requirements and protection of small fish (including the 10-percent tolerance limit on the harvest of BFT measuring less than 115 cm and the procedures for addressing overharvest of the tolerance limit), area and time restrictions, transshipment, scientific research, and data and reporting requirements.

Following the 2017 stock assessment, NMFS, applying domestic stock status determination criteria, concluded that the overfished status of the stock is unknown and the stock is not subject to overfishing, stating that changing from overfished to unknown status was appropriate given the continued inability to resolve the two widely divergent stock recruitment potential scenarios and the SCRS' rejection of that approach in the 2017 assessment in favor of a new approach.

Recommendation 17-06 maintained the quota sharing arrangement (i.e., the percentages to each Contracting Party) of previous recommendations. Under the ICCAT recommendation, the annual U.S. quota is 1,247.86 mt, plus 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), resulting in a total of 1,272.86 mt. All TAC, quota, and weight information in this action are whole weight amounts.

This action proposes implementing the ICCAT-recommended quota of 1,272.86 mt, which would remain in effect until changed (for instance as a result of a new ICCAT BFT TAC and U.S. quota recommendation). NMFS currently anticipates that the annual baseline quota and subquotas would be in effect through 2020.

The ICCAT-recommended BFT quota proposed in this action would then be divided among the established regulatory domestic BFT subquota categories. First, 68 mt is subtracted from the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota and allocated to the Longline category quota. Second, the remaining quota is divided among the categories according to the following percentages: General—47.1 percent; Angling—19.7 percent; Harpoon—3.9 percent; Purse Seine—18.6 percent; Longline—8.1 percent (plus the 68-mt initial allocation); Trap—0.1 percent; and Reserve—2.5 percent.

The table below shows the proposed quotas and subquotas that result from applying this process. These quotas would be codified at § 635.27(a) and would remain in effect until changed.

Within the BFT quota proposed in this action and consistent with the ICCAT-recommended limit on the harvest of school BFT (measuring 27 to less than 47 inches curved fork length (CFL)), the school BFT subquota would be 127.3 mt. The proposed action also would amend the regulations regarding annual quota adjustments to specify that NMFS may adjust the annual school BFT subquota to ensure compliance with the ICCAT-recommended procedures for addressing overharvest of school BFT. This amendment is needed because the current regulatory text refers to outdated language (regarding multi-year “balancing periods”) from a previous ICCAT recommendation.

In 2016, following consideration of the 2016 stock assessment, which showed that the stock was no longer overfished and not subject to overfishing, ICCAT determined that a rebuilding program was no longer needed and adopted a recommendation for a conservation and management program for northern albacore (ICCAT Recommendation 16-06 on a Multi-Annual Conservation and Management Program for North Atlantic Albacore). Recommendation 16-06 maintained the 28,000-mt TAC from the prior recommendation for each of 2017 and 2018, with the possibility of an increase to 30,000 mt for 2019-2020 subject to a decision by the Commission based on updated SCRS advice in 2018. However, in the event that ICCAT adopted a harvest control rule during the 2017-2020 period, the recommendation called for the TAC to be modified accordingly. The annual U.S. quota under that Recommendation was 527 mt. Key provisions continued to include: Quotas for the major harvesters and catch limits for other Contracting Parties and a 10-percent limit on the amount of unused quota Contracting Parties may carry forward.

Recommendation 16-06 also incorporated capacity management measures from other active recommendations, including language establishing an authorized vessel list for NALB, operative paragraphs regarding anticipated harvest control rules and management strategy evaluation for the stock, and performance indicators to support future decision making.

In 2017, following consideration of SCRS' work to test a set of harvest control rules through management strategy evaluation simulations, ICCAT adopted an interim harvest control rule for NALB, the first for any ICCAT stock, with the goal of adopting a long-term harvest control rule following further management strategy evaluation testing over the next few years. ICCAT Recommendation 17-04 (Recommendation by ICCAT on a Harvest Control Rule for North Atlantic Albacore Supplementing the Multiannual Conservation and Management Programme, Recommendation 16-06) establishes various biomass and fishing mortality rate-based reference points and includes the specific harvest control rule formula and figure, as well as the formula for setting the appropriate fishing mortality rate and, in turn, the TAC. The 3-year constant annual TAC adopted by ICCAT in 2017 is 33,600 t for 2018-2020; this 20-percent increase from the current 28,000-t TAC is consistent with the Commission's chosen stability clause, which limits the TAC increase to 20 percent. Application of ICCAT's NALB allocations to Contracting Parties results in a U.S. quota of 632.4 mt, which is a 20-percent increase (105.4 mt) from the current 527-mt quota. The recommendation calls on the SCRS to continue to develop the management strategy evaluation framework over the 2018-2020 period and calls on ICCAT to review the interim harvest control rule in 2020 with a view to adopting a long-term management procedure at that point. ICCAT plans to consolidate Recommendations 17-04 and 16-06, as well as consider refinements of the interim harvest control rule, at the 2018 Commission meeting.

Following the 2016 stock assessment, NMFS applied domestic stock status determination criteria and concluded that the status of the stock should be changed from “not overfished—rebuilding” to “rebuilt.”

The currently-codified baseline annual U.S. NALB quota is 527 mt, which NMFS implemented in 2015 to reflect the amount in the previous ICCAT Recommendation (Recommendation 13-05, Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the North Atlantic Albacore Rebuilding Program). This action proposes implementing the current ICCAT-recommended quota of 632.4 mt.

Minimum fish size regulations have applied for Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna since 1996, when NMFS implemented the 27-inch minimum size for BFT consistent with ICCAT requirements, and also implemented a 27-inch minimum size for bigeye and yellowfin tuna for identification and enforcement purposes. These fish may be landed round with fins intact, or eviscerated with the head and fins removed as long as one pectoral fin and the tail remain attached. They cannot be filleted or cut into pieces at sea. The upper and lower lobes of the tail may be removed from tunas for storage purposes but the fork of the tail must remain intact.

To facilitate enforcement, total CFL is the sole criterion for determining the size class of whole (with head) Atlantic tunas. CFL is measured by tracing the contour of the body from the tip of the upper jaw to the fork of the tail in a line that runs along the top of the pectoral fin and the top of the caudal keel. Pectoral fin curved fork length (PFCFL) is the sole criterion for determining the size class of a bluefin tuna with the head removed and is multiplied by 1.35 to obtain total CFL. For detailed diagrams and measuring instructions, see the HMS Compliance Guides at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/atlantic-highly-migratory-species/atlantic-highly-migratory-species-fishery-compliance-guides. Currently, the size limit regulations prohibit a person from taking, retaining, or possessing a BFT, bigeye tuna, or yellowfin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean that is less than 27 inches CFL. The regulations also prohibit removing the head of a bigeye tuna or yellowfin tuna if the remaining portion would be less than 27 inches from the fork of the tail to the forward edge of the cut.

NMFS proposes minor modifications to the applicable Atlantic tunas size limit regulations to address retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and yellowfin damaged by shark bites. NMFS implemented similar measures to address shark-damaged swordfish in 1996 (61 FR 27304, May 31, 1996). Specifically, NMFS proposes to add text to the size limit regulations applicable to bigeye and yellowfin tunas to indicate that a “bigeye or yellowfin tuna that is damaged by shark bites may be retained, possessed, or landed only if the length of the remainder of the fish is equal to or greater than 27 inches (69 cm).” These changes would allow retention, possession, and landing of yellowfin and bigeye tuna for which a measurement to the fork of the tail may not be possible, provided that the remainder of the fish meets the current minimum size (e.g., 27 inches for yellowfin and bigeye tuna). For enforcement purposes to preserve evidence that the carcass was shark-bitten, the action also proposes that no tissue may be cut away from or other alterations made to the shark-damaged area of the fish. The effects of this change are primarily economic and administrative and no environmental effects are anticipated because the change only allows for retention of a very limited number of fish that would otherwise be caught but need to be discarded.

NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule through August 6, 2018. See instructions in ADDRESSES section.

NMFS will hold a public hearing conference call and webinar on July 17, 2018, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. EDT, to allow for an additional opportunity for interested members of the public from all geographic areas to submit verbal comments on the proposed quota rule.

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public hearings and on conference calls to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the conference call, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (all comments are to be directed to the agency on the proposed action; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject matter. If attendees do not respect the ground rules, they will be asked to leave the conference call.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

In compliance with section 603(b)(1) of the RFA, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, to analyze the impacts of the alternatives for implementing the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT and NALB quotas and allocating the BFT quota per the codified quota regulations. The proposed action also would update regulatory language on school BFT to reflect current ICCAT requirements and would make a minor change to the Atlantic tunas size limit regulations to address retention, possession, and landing of bigeye and yellowfin tuna damaged by shark bites.

In compliance with section 603(b)(2) of the RFA, the objective of this proposed rulemaking is to implement ICCAT recommendations and achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide descriptions of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS did in a December 29, 2015, final rule (80 FR 81194) which was effective on July 1, 2016 (50 CFR 200.2). In 50 CFR 200.2, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all commercial HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing.

As described in the recently published final rule to implement quarterly Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) accounting (82 FR 61489, December 28, 2017), the average annual gross revenue per active pelagic longline vessel was estimated to be $308,050 for 2013 through 2016. NMFS considers all HMS Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders (280 as of October 2017) to be small entities because these vessels have reported annual gross receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. The average annual gross revenue per active pelagic longline vessel was estimated to be $187,000, based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2015 was $1.9 million, well below the NMFS small business size threshold of $11 million in gross receipts for commercial fishing. NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic Tunas category permit holders that potentially could earn more than $11 million in revenue annually. HMS Angling category permits, which are recreational fishing permits, are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas permit holders and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders subject to this action to be small entities.

This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic tunas fisheries, i.e., to the over 27,000 vessels that held an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat, Atlantic HMS Angling, or an Atlantic Tunas permit as of October 2017. This proposed rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT and NALB fisheries or fishing services for recreational anglers. As summarized in the 2017 SAFE Report for Atlantic HMS, there were 6,855 commercial Atlantic tunas or Atlantic HMS permits in 2017, as follows: 2,940 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 11 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 5 in the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category; 280 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category; 1 in the Atlantic Tunas Trap category; and 3,618 in the HMS Charter/Headboat category. In the process of developing the IBQ regulations implemented in the final rule for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), NMFS deemed 136 Longline category vessels as eligible for IBQ shares (i.e., 136 vessels reported a set in the HMS logbook between 2006 and 2012 and had valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits on a vessel as of August 21, 2013, the publication date of the Amendment 7 proposed rule). This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permits and permit holders recently analyzed. It is unknown what portion of fishery participants would benefit from the minor change in the regulations to allow retention, possession, and landing of shark-damaged bigeye and yellowfin tuna, for which a measurement to the fork of the tail may not be possible, provided that the remainder of the fish meets the current minimum sizes (e.g., 27 inches for yellowfin, and bigeye tunas). NMFS has determined that this action would not likely directly affect any small government jurisdictions defined under the RFA.

Under section 603(b)(4) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any new reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule has also been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.

Under section 603(c) of the RFA, agencies are required to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. These alternatives and their impacts are discussed below. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of significant alternatives that would assist an agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and, (4) exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it, because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities, and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. Thus, no alternatives are discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. Amendment 7 in 2014 implemented criteria for determining the availability of BFT quota for Purse Seine fishery category participants and IBQs for the Longline category. Both of these and the eligibility criteria for IBQs and access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area for the Longline category can be considered individual performance standards. NMFS has not yet found a practical means of applying individual performance standards to the other quota categories while concurrently complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, there are no alternatives considered under the third category.

NMFS has estimated the average impact that establishing the increased annual U.S. baseline BFT quota for all domestic fishing categories would have on individual categories and the vessels within those categories. As mentioned above, the 2017 BFT ICCAT recommendation increased the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota for each of 2018, 2019, and 2020 to 1,247.86 mt and provides 25 mt annually for incidental catch of BFT related to directed longline fisheries in the NED. The annual U.S. baseline BFT subquotas would be adjusted consistent with the process (i.e., the formulas) established in Amendment 7 (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014) and as codified in the quota regulations, and these amounts (in mt) would be codified.

This rulemaking proposes to implement the recently adopted ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT and NALB quotas and, for BFT, to apply the allocations for each quota category per the codified quota regulations. This action would be consistent with ATCA, under which the Secretary promulgates regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement binding ICCAT recommendations.

To calculate the average ex-vessel BFT revenues under this action, NMFS first estimated potential category-wide revenues. The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota category is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the proposed subquotas (i.e., 2017 prices for the General, Harpoon, and Longline/Trap categories, and 2015 prices for the Purse Seine category). For comparison, in 2017, gross revenues were approximately $9.2 million, broken out by category as follows: General—$7.8 million, Harpoon—$496,968, Purse Seine—$0, Longline—$878,824, and Trap—$0. The proposed baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $10 million annually, if finalized and fully utilized, broken out by category as follows: General category: $6.5 million (555.7 mt * $5.30/lb); Harpoon category: $526,326 (46 mt * $5.19/lb); Purse Seine category: $1.5 million (219.5 mt * $3.21/lb); Longline category: $1.4 million (163.6 mt * $3.99/lb); and Trap category: $10,556 (1.2 mt * $3.99/lb).

No affected entities would be expected to experience negative, direct economic impacts as a result of this action. On the contrary, each of the BFT quota categories would increase relative to the baseline quotas that applied in 2015 through 2017. To the extent that Purse Seine fishery participants and IBQ participants could receive additional quota as a result of the Amendment 7-implemented allocation formulas being applied to increases in available Purse Seine and Longline category quota, those participants would receive varying amounts of an increase, which would result in direct benefits from either increased fishing opportunities or quota leasing.

To estimate potential average ex-vessel revenues that could result from this action for BFT, NMFS divides the potential annual gross revenues for the General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Trap category by the number of permit holders. For the Longline category, NMFS divides the potential annual gross revenues by the number of IBQ share recipients. This is an appropriate approach for BFT fisheries, in particular, because available landings data (weight and ex-vessel value of the fish in price-per-pound) allow NMFS to calculate the gross revenue earned by a fishery participant on a successful trip. The available data (particularly from non-Longline participants) do not, however, allow NMFS to calculate the effort and cost associated with each successful trip (e.g., the cost of gas, bait, ice, etc.), so net revenue for each participant cannot be calculated. As a result, NMFS analyzes the average impact of the proposed alternatives among all participants in each category.

Success rates vary widely across participants in each category (due to extent of vessel effort and availability of commercial-sized BFT to participants where they fish), but for the sake of estimating potential revenues per vessel, category-wide revenues can be divided by the number of permitted vessels in each category. For the Longline fishery, actual revenues would depend, in part, on each vessel's IBQ in 2018. It is unknown what portion of HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders actively participate in the BFT fishery. HMS Charter/Headboat vessels may fish commercially under the General category quota and retention limits. Therefore, NMFS is estimating potential General category ex-vessel revenue changes using the number of General category vessels only.

Estimated potential 2018 revenues on a per vessel basis, considering the number of permit holders listed above and the proposed subquotas, could be $2,409 for the General category; $47,848 for the Harpoon category; $310,670 for the Purse Seine category; $10,582 for the Longline category, using the 136 IBQ share recipients; and $10,556 for the Trap category. Thus, all of the entities affected by this rule are considered to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

Consistent with the codified BFT quota regulations at § 635.27(a)(v), NMFS will continue to annually calculate the quota available to historical Purse Seine fishery participants and reallocate the remaining Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category. NMFS will further adjust those amounts if the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota in this proposed rule is finalized. The analyses in this IRFA are limited to the proposed baseline subquotas.

Because the directed commercial categories have underharvested their subquotas in recent years, the potential increases in ex-vessel revenues above may overestimate the probable economic impacts to those categories relative to recent conditions. Additionally, there has been substantial interannual variability in ex-vessel revenues in each category in recent years, due to recent changes in BFT availability and other factors.

The 2017 NALB ICCAT recommendation increased the annual U.S. baseline NALB quota for each of 2018, 2019, and 2020 to 632.4 mt. Based on knowledge of current participants in the fishery and estimated gross revenues, NMFS considers all of the entities affected by the NALB quota action be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

NMFS does not subdivide the U.S. NALB quota into category subquotas. The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues. The proposed baseline subquotas could result in estimated gross revenues of $1.8 million annually, if finalized and fully utilized ((632.4 mt/1.25) * $1.63/lb dw). No affected entities would be expected to experience negative, direct economic impacts as a result of this action.

The proposed change to the regulatory text concerning Atlantic bigeye and yellowfin tuna size limits applies to all fishery participants but is not expected to have significant economic impacts. This is because shark damage to caught bigeye and yellowfin tuna is rare, and the proposed change to the regulatory text is not expected to result in changes to Atlantic tunas fishery operations.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 635 to read as follows: