Federal Register Vol. 83, No.187,

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-17-04, Amendment 39-18237 (80 FR 50556, August 20, 2015) (“AD 2015-17-04”). AD 2015-17-04 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2018 (83 FR 21966). The NPRM was prompted by reports of a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod and a report indicating that certain revisions of the service information were missing instructions for proper installation of the key washers having part number BA698-93726-3. The NPRM proposed to continue to require replacement of left and right fixed control rods and lever assemblies of the elevator control system. The NPRM also proposed to require a detailed visual inspection of the key washers and self-locking nuts of the elevator control linkages and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnect between the elevator lever and control rod, which could lead to uncommanded elevator movement of the associated control surface, a large difference between the position of the left and the right elevator control surfaces, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane and degradation of the structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2014-44R1, dated October 6, 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), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-100 and -300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2018 (83 FR 26389). The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating corrosion on the horizontal stabilizer bearing supports at the contact surface to the horizontal stabilizer rear spar. The NPRM proposed to require inspections for corrosion and any other damage (i.e., cracking and chafing) of the horizontal stabilizer rear bearing supports, replacement of the affected horizontal stabilizer rear bearing supports if necessary, and modification of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar.

We are issuing this AD to address corrosion on the horizontal stabilizer rear bearing supports and rear spar, which could lead to failure of the fitting and loss of one load path of the horizontal stabilizer attachment, and possibly result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0239, dated November 30, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all 328 Support Services GmbH Model 328-100 and -300 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-2018-0503.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We received 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328-55-557, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018; and 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328J-55-324, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018. We referred to 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328-55-557, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2018; and 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328J-55-324, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2018; as the appropriate sources of service information for the actions specified in the proposed AD. Revision 2 of the service information corrects spelling errors and adds alternative parts. No additional work is needed if the actions specified in the earlier revisions of the service information have been done.

We have revised this AD to refer to 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328-55-557, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018; and 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328J-55-324, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018, as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishing the required actions. We have also added 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328-55-557, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2018; and 328 Support Services GmbH Service Bulletin SB-328J-55-324, Revision 1, dated February 1, 2018, to paragraph (j) of this AD in order to give credit for accomplishing actions specified in Revision 1 of the service information.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

328 Support Services GmbH has issued Service Bulletin SB-328-55-557, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018; and Service Bulletin SB-328J-55-324, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection and an eddy current inspection for corrosion and any other damage (i.e., cracking and chafing) of the horizontal stabilizer rear bearing supports, modification of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar, and replacement of the affected horizontal stabilizer rear bearing supports if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 estimate that this AD affects 27 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-25-06, Amendment 39-16539 (75 FR 81409, December 28, 2010) (“AD 2010-25-06”). AD 2010-25-06 applied to certain Model 737-200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2018 (83 FR 22422). The NPRM was prompted by additional cracking found in areas not covered by the inspections in AD 2010-25-06. The NPRM proposed to retain the actions required by AD 2010-25-06 and expand the inspection area. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of certain fuselage frames and stub beams and possible severed frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the frames. This reduced structural integrity can increase loading in the fuselage skin, which will accelerate skin crack growth and could result in rapid decompression of the fuselage.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Boeing asked that the compliance language in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) of the proposed AD be changed since there are multiple conditions and compliance times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of the referenced service information. Boeing asked that the wording in these paragraphs be changed from “at the applicable time” specified in tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, respectively, to “at the applicable condition and time” specified in tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, respectively. Boeing stated that these changes would provide clarification.

Although we do not agree to revise this AD as requested by the commenter, we agree to clarify the compliance language. The phrase “at the applicable time” means the compliance time associated with a given condition, as specified in the applicable table in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We inadvertently omitted the word “in” prior to the word “table” in the phrase “. . . the applicable time specified table . . .” in certain sentences in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD. We have revised the applicable sentences in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD to read “. . . the applicable time specified in table. . . .”

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1254, Revision 3, dated November 13, 2017. This service information describes procedures for detailed and eddy current inspections of the fuselage frame and over wing stub beam at body station (BS) 616, BS 639, and BS 597 or BS 601, and buttock line (BL) 45.5 floor beam web at the BS 639 stub beam attachment, and related investigative and corrective actions. 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 estimate that this AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do certain necessary repairs/replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Glen Ullin Regional Airport, Glen Ullin, ND to support IFR operations at the airport.

On May 21, 2018, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 23381) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0312, to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Glen Ullin Regional Airport, Glen Ullin, ND. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Glen Ullin Regional Airport, Glen Ullin, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures developed for the airport, for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Controlled airspace is necessary.

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

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

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

Background

The Entity List (15 CFR, Subchapter C, part 744, Supplement No. 4) identifies entities reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR, Subchapter C, parts 730-774) imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License review policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register notice adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote, and makes all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add fourteen entities to the Entity List. The addition of these fourteen entities involves sixteen Entity List entries, as one of the entities being added has locations in three destinations. The fourteen entities are being added based on § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The sixteen entries consist of two entries located in Belarus, one entry located in Iran, twelve entries located in Russia and one entry located in Singapore.

The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these fourteen entities to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, along with those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. For each of the fourteen entities described below, the ERC made the requisite determination under the standard set forth in § 744.11(b).

Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that Nilco Group, located in Belarus, Iran, and Russia, and Mohammad Najafi, located in Belarus, be added to the Entity List based on their involvement in providing material support to Iranian missile programs.

The ERC also determined that four commercial companies—Joint Stock Company Scientific-Research Institute “Vektor”, Open Joint Stock Company Information Technology and Communication Systems, Federal State Unitary Enterprise Scientific Production Enterprise “GAMMA”, and Syrus Systems—located in Russia be added to the Entity List. These entities have enabled the activities of malicious Russian cyber actors. In addition, the ERC determined that two entities, Divetechnoservices and Oceanos, be added to the Entity List under the destination of Russia for providing equipment and support to the Russian Navy. The ERC also determined that five entities—AeroComposit; Obinsk Research and Production Enterprise (ORPE), Open Joint Stock Company Aviadvigatel, Open Joint Stock Company Scientific and Production Corporation of Precision Instruments Engineering (NPK-SPP), and Voronezh Scientific Research Institute “Vega”—be added to the Entity List for supporting Russian military aerospace production activities.

Under the destination of Singapore, the ERC determined that one entity, All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd., be added to the Entity List based on its involvement in the proliferation of unsafeguarded nuclear activities.

Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these fourteen entities raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR involving these entities, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR.

For thirteen of the fourteen entities described above that are being added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. For All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd, the entity added under Singapore, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and will exercise the license review policy set forth in subpart (d) of EAR § 744.2, a nuclear end-user and end-use based provision. For all fourteen entities, the license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the entities or in which such entities act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the entities being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.

This final rule adds the following fourteen entities to the Entity List, including one entity listed under three entries:

(1) Mohammad Ghassem Najafi,

Unit 705, No. 103, Potbediteley Ave., Minsk, Belarus; and

(2) Nilco Group, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Unit 705, No. 103, Potbediteley Ave., Minsk, Belarus (see alternate addresses under Iran and Russia).

(1) Nilco Group, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Unit 6, No. 1, Mehr Alley, Gilan St., Boostan 2, Pasdaran Ave., Tehran, Iran (see alternate addresses under Belarus and Russia).

(1) AeroComposit,

Antonova Prospekt 1, Zavolzhsky District, Ulyanovsk, 432072, Russia;

(2) Divetechnoservices, a.k.a., the following five aliases:

Ulitsa Zheleznovodskaya, 18/2 Litera A, Saint Petersburg, 199155, Russia;

(3) Federal State Unitary Enterprise Scientific Production Enterprise “GAMMA”,

Ul. Profsoyuznaya d. 78 str. 4, Moscow, 117393, Russia;

(4) Joint Stock Company Scientific-Research Institute “Vektor”,

Ul. Akademika Pavlova, d. 14-A, Saint Petersburg, 197376, Russia;

(5) Nilco Group, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Unit 439, 2 Mozhayskoe Road, Moscow, Russia (see alternate addresses under Belarus and Iran);

(6) Obinsk Research and Production Enterprise (ORPE), a.k.a., the following three aliases:

Kievskoe Shosse 15, Obinsk, 249031, Russia;

(7) Oceanos,

19/2 Esenina Street, Saint Petersburg, 194295, Russia; and 16/2 A-H Engelsa Prospekt, Saint Petersburg, 195156, Russia;

(8) Open Joint Stock Company Aviadvigatel, a.k.a., the following one alias:

Komsomolsky Prospekt 93, Perm, 614990, Russia;

(9) Open Joint Stock Company Information Technology and Communication Systems, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Proezd Petrovsko-Razumovski Star, d. 1/23 str. 1 Business Center “Vympel,” Moscow, 127287, Russia;

(10) Open Joint Stock Company Scientific and Production Corporation of Precision Instruments Engineering (NPK-SPP), a.k.a., the following one alias:

Aviamotornaya Ulitsa 53, Moscow, 111024, Russia;

(11) Syrus Systems,

3-Y Novyy Pereulok, 5, Moscow, 107140, Russia; and

(12) Voronezh Scientific Research Institute “Vega”, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Moskovskiy Prospekt 7B, Voronezh, 394026, Russia.

(1) All Industrial Manufacturing (AIM) Pte Ltd.,

4 Kaki Bukit Ave 1, #02-05, 417939, Singapore.

This final rule implements the decision of the ERC to modify one existing entry, AdCom Systems, which was added to the Entity List under the destination of the United Arab Emirates on March 21, 2016 (81 FR 14958) for attempting to export Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Category I unmanned aerial vehicles to countries that are not MTCR members. The ERC determined that AdCom Systems has been using two aliases, Sky Global Communications and Sky Global Communications Systems. Consequently, BIS is revising the entry for AdCom Systems by adding two aliases and a new address.

This final rule makes the following modifications to one entry on the Entity List:

(1) AdCom Systems, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

Industrial City of Abu Dhabi—ICAD1, Mussafah, Abu Dhabi, UAE; and #2 Mezzanine Level, Block 19, Sharq 40 Al Morour Street, Abu Dhabi Island, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

This rule implements a decision of the ERC to remove Antony Emmanuel, an entity located in Hong Kong, from the Entity List on the basis of a removal request. The entry for Antony Emmanuel was added to the Entity List on October 22, 2008 (73 FR 54505). The ERC decided to remove this entry based on information BIS received pursuant to § 744.16 of the EAR and the review the ERC conducted in accordance with procedures described in Supplement No. 5 to part 744.

This final rule implements the decision to remove the following entity located in Hong Kong from the Entity List:

(1) Antony Emmanuel,

No. 3 & 4, 12F Commercial VIP Building, 112-116 Canton Rd., Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or for export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on September 26, 2018, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232), which provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set forth in § 1768 of ECRA, all delegations, rules, regulations, orders, determinations, licenses, or other forms of administrative action that have been made, issued, conducted, or allowed to become effective under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) (as in effect prior to August 13, 2018 and as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 8, 2018, 83 FR 39871 (August 13, 2018)), or the Export Administration Regulations, and are in effect as of August 13, 2018, shall continue in effect according to their terms until modified, superseded, set aside, or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to § 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (Title XVII, Subtitle B of Pub. L. 115-232), which was included in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

5. This action involves the removal of an entity from the Entity List. Removals from the Entity List involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including, where applicable, sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is reviewed according to the procedures and criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set forth in 15 CFR 744.11, 15 CFR 744.16, and 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5. For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relies to make the decisions to remove these entities. In addition, the information included in a removal request is exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (§ 1761(h) of the ECRA), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List may contain confidential business information that is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the ERC.

6. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

I. Background

E.O. 13658, titled “Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors,” was issued on February 12, 2014. See 79 FR 9849. E.O. 13658 raised the hourly minimum wage for certain workers performing work on covered Federal contracts to $10.10 per hour in 2015, with annual inflation-based adjustments thereafter as determined by the Secretary of Labor (Secretary). Id. As of January 1, 2018, the E.O. 13658 minimum wage rate is $10.35 per hour. As of January 1, 2019, the E.O. 13658 minimum wage will be $10.60 per hour. See 83 FR 44906.1

E.O. 13658 and its implementing regulations established that this minimum wage requirement applies only to a “new contract” that qualifies as: (A) A procurement contract for construction covered under the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA); (B) a contract for services covered under the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA); (C) a contract for concessions, including any concessions contract that the Department's regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b) exclude from the SCA; or (D) a contract with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public. Further, this minimum wage requirement applies only when the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the SCA, or the DBA governs the workers' wages. The October 7, 2014 final rule implementing E.O. 13658 applied to covered workers of contractors providing seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental on Federal lands under covered contracts.

On May 25, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued E.O. 13838, titled “Exemption from Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands.” See 83 FR 25341. Section 2 of E.O. 13838 amended E.O. 13658 to add language providing that the provisions of E.O. 13658 do “not apply to federal contracts or contract-like instruments” entered into “in connection with seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental.” The E.O. additionally stated that seasonal recreational services include “river running, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, mountaineering activities, recreational ski services, and youth camps.” E.O. 13838 further specified that this exemption does not apply to “lodging and food services associated with seasonal recreational activities.”

E.O. 13838 explained that because of the nature of the industry, seasonal recreational workers have “irregular work schedules, a high incidence of overtime pay, and an unusually high turnover rate.” The order further explained that implementing E.O. 13658, therefore, threatened to significantly increase the cost of seasonal recreational services on Federal lands, while limiting the hours that recreational-service workers would be available to work. Thus, exempting these services from E.O. 13658 would help prevent job losses and ensure affordable guided tours for visitors to Federal lands.

E.O. 13838 requires executive departments and agencies to “promptly take appropriate action to implement this exemption and to ensure that [their] regulations and agency guidance are consistent” with the E.O.

The Department is updating 29 CFR 10.4 to conform to the requirements of E.O. 13838. The President issued E.O. 13838 pursuant to his authority under the Constitution and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Procurement Act). 83 FR 25341. The Procurement Act authorizes the President to “prescribe policies and directives that [the President] considers necessary to carry out” the statutory purposes of ensuring “economical and efficient” government procurement and administration of government property. 40 U.S.C. 101, 121(a).

The Secretary has delegated his authority to implement E.O. 13658, and hence E.O. 13838, to the Administrator of the WHD. See Secretary's Order 01-2014 (Dec. 19, 2014), 79 FR 77527 (published Dec. 24, 2014).

The Department is promulgating this final rule to implement E.O. 13838's exemption for seasonal recreational services and equipment rental. This action makes no substantive changes to E.O. 13658 or its implementing regulations beyond what E.O. 13838 addresses, as E.O. 13838 itself modified E.O. 13658 and directed Federal agencies and departments to implement that exemption. This action conforms E.O. 13658's implementing regulations with the requirements of E.O. 13838. This will help ensure that parties contracting with the Federal Government are aware of the scope of coverage under E.O. 13658, as amended by E.O. 13838.

To incorporate E.O. 13838 into existing regulations, the Department is amending 29 CFR 10.4 to add a new subsection (g), containing language identical to that which E.O. 13838 inserted into E.O. 13658. New 29 CFR 10.4(g) will reflect that the requirements of E.O. 13658 no longer apply to special-use permits or similar instruments issued by the U.S. Forest Service or other Federal agencies for seasonal recreational outfitter services, seasonal recreational guide services, and other seasonal recreational services, or to permits or instruments issued for seasonal recreational equipment rental.

Consistent with the instruction in E.O. 13838, new 29 CFR 10.4(g) does not limit E.O. 13658's coverage of lodging and food services associated with seasonal recreational services, even when seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental are also provided under the same contract. Thus, when a contract contains both exempt and covered services—say, services for equipment rental and also services for food and lodging—E.O. 13658 will continue to apply to the covered services (i.e. the contractor minimum wage would apply to the positions in food service and lodging, but not to the positions in equipment rental). In such circumstances, the E.O. minimum wage contract-clause in appendix A of 29 CFR part 10 should therefore be included in all covered contracts and solicitations for such contracts, as described in 29 CFR 10.3. In these instances, the contracting agency, in consultation with the contractor and WHD as needed, shall identify which services are covered and which are exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13658.

E.O. 13838 and new 29 CFR 10.4(g) do not affect the Department's implementation, administration, or enforcement of the Final Rule implementing E.O. 13658 with respect to any contracts other than those exempted in whole or in part from coverage under E.O. 13838 and 29 CFR 10.4(g). They likewise do not affect contracting agencies' implementation and administration of E.O. 13658 and its implementing regulations with respect to any contract other than those specifically described in E.O. 13838.

E.O. 13838 and new 29 CFR 10.4(g) also do not limit or otherwise modify a contractor's obligations under the FLSA, SCA, DBA, or any other law. For example, as reflected in 29 CFR 10.26(c), the requirements of E.O. 13658 do not limit or otherwise modify a contractor's payroll and recordkeeping obligations, if any, under the FLSA, SCA, or DBA, or their implementing regulations. E.O. 13838 and 29 CFR 10.4(g) therefore do not exempt a contractor who is subject to the exemption, established by E.O. 13838 and by 29 CFR 10.4(g), from the requirements of the FLSA, SCA, DBA, or any other applicable law.

The Department promulgates this final rule without notice or an opportunity for public comment because this action is limited to implementing E.O. 13838 by inserting into the Department's regulations the identical language that E.O. 13838 inserted into E.O. 13658. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that the notice-and-comment procedure does not apply when an agency for good cause finds that it is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are “unnecessary,” within the meaning of the APA, when changes to regulations “merely restate” the changes in the enabling authority that they implement.2 Gray Panthers Advocacy Cmt. v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1284, 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1991). In other words, the normal “notice-and-comment procedures” are not required when an agency “reiterates” an existing requirement by “reprinting” that requirement in its own regulations. Komjathy v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 832 F.2d 1294, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Here, the Department for good cause finds that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule updates the October 7, 2014, regulation to conform with E.O. 13838 by inserting into the regulation the identical language that E.O. 13838 inserted into E.O. 13658. Thus, the rule is merely restating the changes to the enabling authority—E.O. 13658—that these regulations implement. E.O. 13838 requires agencies “to implement [its] exemption and to ensure that all applicable regulations and agency guidance are consistent with [the E.O.],” and the Department lacks the discretion to deviate from this directive. The Department has explained that in this circumstance, it “may not, in response to public comment, change or decline to implement [an] amendment” to an executive order. 68 FR 56392 (Sept. 30, 2003). Indeed, it has promulgated final rules without notice and comment in similar situations. See, e.g., Affirmative Action Obligations of Government Contractors, 68 FR 56392 (Sept. 30, 2003) (adding religious exemption into regulations by “simply incorporat[ing]” language from executive order in regulations). The Department accordingly finds that notice and comment are “unnecessary” under the APA.

Additionally, this rule is effective on the date of publication because the standard 30-day delay does not apply when a rule recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This final rule establishes no new burdens on the regulated community; rather it relaxes an existing restriction. The Department has explained that, under the APA, when a rule “relieves present restrictions, delay in its effective date is excused by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).” 33 FR 8542 (June 11, 1968); see also 45 FR 35325 (May 27, 1980). The Department has followed this interpretation on numerous occasions, having rules become effective upon issuance when they recognized an exemption to a generally applicable duty or relieved a regulated community of a restriction. See, e.g., Cranes and Derricks in Construction, 82 FR 51986 (Nov. 9, 2017); Employment of Homeworkers in Certain Industries, 49 FR 11792 (Mar. 27, 1984); Farm Labor Contractor Registration, 45 FR 25323 (May 27, 1980); Procedures for Consolidation of Existing Exclusively Recognized Units, 40 FR 50714 (Oct. 31, 1975); Federal Extension Service Exemption, 33 FR 8542 (June 11, 1968). Because this rule relieves the regulated community of a compliance duty, a 30-day delay is unnecessary and the rule is effective upon issuance.

In short, the rule promulgated today adds into the Department's regulations the identical text that E.O. 13838 inserted into E.O. 13658. This action recognizes an exemption to E.O. 13658's requirements for certain contracts. In this circumstance, issuance of the rule without notice and comment is proper, as is the rule's effectiveness upon publication.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require the Department to consider the agency's need for its information collections and their practical utility, as well as the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public, and how to minimize those burdens. The PRA typically requires an agency to provide notice and seek public comments on any proposed collection of information contained in a rule. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B); 5 CFR 1320.8. This rule does not contain a collection of information subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Under E.O. 12866, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and OMB review.3 Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule that: (1) Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O.. Because the annual effect of this rule would be less than $100 million, this rule would not be economically significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; that it is tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and that, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected the approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.

This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

E.O. 13658 required an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 for workers on covered Federal contracts where the solicitation for such contracts was issued (or the contract was awarded outside the solicitation process) on or after January 1, 2015. The E.O. applied only to new contracts. Each year, pursuant to E.O. 13658, the Department adjusts this minimum wage using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). As of January 2018, the minimum wage for non-tipped covered workers on covered Federal contracts was $10.35.

E.O. 13838, issued on May 25, 2018, exempts from E.O. 13658 contracts with the Federal Government in connection with seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands. E.O. 13838 directs executive departments and agencies to implement promptly the exemption. This economic analysis attempts to quantify the transfers and costs associated with the exemption from E.O. 13658 for recreational services on Federal lands, and it provides a qualitative discussion of benefits. Under E.O. 13838, exempted contractors no longer have to pay a minimum wage of $10.35; they can instead pay, at least, the higher of either the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 or any applicable state or local minimum wage. Transfers will occur when employers choose to adjust employees' wages below $10.35.

To calculate transfers, the Department first determined the number of potential workers that E.O. 13838 could affect. There is no single source that provides data on how many workers are employed on contracts in connection with seasonal recreational services on Federal lands, so the Department relied on a variety of data sources to estimate the number of affected workers. The Department assumes that most impacted workers will fall under two Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides, and SOC 39-9032 Recreation Workers. The Department recognizes that impacted workers may be found in additional occupations, but this analysis is limited to these two occupations because the Department lacks more substantive data on other workers. The Department also recognizes that E.O. 13658 and E.O. 13838 do not govern all workers in these two occupations, but limiting the number of impacted workers to Federal contract workers in those occupations will help narrow the analysis to the impacted population. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program, as of May 2017, the economy had 46,140 workers employed as Tour and Travel Guides and had 352,350 workers employed as Recreation Workers—totaling 398,490 workers employed in those two occupations.4 These two occupations together represent approximately 0.28 percent of employment in the United States.5

To estimate the total number of impacted workers, the Department also needed to determine the number of workers carrying out Federal contracts. The Department has previously estimated that annually, 1,727,000 workers carry out Federal contracts in the four categories covered by E.O. 13658.6 This figure is an approximation only. The Department multiplied 0.28 percent (the occupational share) by the number of workers on covered Federal contracts to estimate the number of Federal-contract workers who are employed in connection with recreational services.7 The Department thus estimates that there are 4,828 workers (= 1,727,000 × 0.28%) employed on Federal contracts as outfitters, guides, and other recreational-service workers. Because about 20 percent of Federal contracts are initiated each year and because E.O. 13658 has been in effect for fewer than four years, the Department estimates that 3,862 (= 4,828 × 80%) workers will be affected by this rule.

This economic analysis attempts to calculate the total potential transfers from employees to employers when employers no longer have to pay the E.O. 13658 minimum wage, which is currently $10.35. The Department assumes that employers with contracts on Federal lands who were paying $10.35 before E.O. 13838 will now choose to pay the Federal minimum wage of $7.25.8 The Department assumes that employers who pay workers more than the minimum wage of $10.35 will continue paying those wages and therefore will not be affected. The analysis assumes that only those making $10.35 per hour will be affected. Because there is no easily accessible data on the exact wages of seasonal recreational employees on Federal contracts, the Department used the distribution of employment within specific wage ranges from BLS Occupational Employment Statistics to estimate the share of workers earning $10.35 or less.9 The Department therefore assumes that everyone making $10.35 or less is actually earning the minimum of $10.35. Using a linear approximation of the employment share earning $10.35 within the weighted wage ranges for Tour and Travel Guides and Recreation Workers occupations, the Department estimates that 30.83 percent of workers in the Tour and Travel Guides and Recreation Workers occupations earn $10.35 or less. Applying this share to the previous calculation of workers employed on Federal contracts as outfitters, guides, and other recreational-service workers, the Department estimates that 1,191 of these workers earn $10.35 per hour.

The total value of these transfers is estimated to be the difference between $10.35 and the minimum wage for each of these workers. Because data are not available to distinguish these workers by state, the Department calculated the difference between $10.35 and the Federal minimum wage of $7.25. This transfer calculation is therefore likely to be an overestimation because some workers will earn their applicable state minimum wage (which is higher than $7.25) and because, in many other instances, contractors with contracts that are now exempt from E.O. 13658 will choose to pay these workers more than the applicable Federal or state minimum wage (though less than $10.35). Multiplying the $3.10 difference in wages by the 1,191 affected workers for 1,040 hours per year, the Department estimates that total transfers will be $3,839,784 at discount rates of both 3 percent and 7 percent.10

The costs associated with this rulemaking are regulatory familiarization costs and any costs that businesses will incur to change their existing payroll systems. Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs on businesses associated with reviewing the new regulation. In this rule, regulatory familiarization costs are a function of the number of contractor firms, and only firms that have contracts with the Federal Government in connection with seasonal recreational services will incur costs. For this activity, the Department estimates that contractor firms will spend 15 minutes to determine whether the exemption applies to them, to evaluate and adjust their pay rates, and to modify their payroll systems. For familiarization cost analysis, the Department assumes that a Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialist (SOC 13-1141) (or a staff member in a similar position) with a median wage of $30.14 per hour in 2017 will review the rule.11 Assuming benefits are paid at a rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and overhead costs are 17 percent of the base wage, the reviewer's effective hourly rate is $49.13 (= $30.14 + ($30.14 × 46%) + ($30.14 × 17%)); thus, the average cost per establishment is $12.28 (=$49.13 × .25 hour of review and adjustment time). According to the 2016 Final Rule to implement E.O. 13706, there are approximately 489,419 potentially affected contractor firms.12 In order to estimate the share of these contractors involved in seasonal recreational activities, the Department used the occupational employment share for Travel and Tour Guides and Recreation Workers as a proxy for contractor firm industry share. Applying the 0.28 percent share to the 489,419 contractor firms yields 1,368 contractor firms in industries related to seasonal recreational activities. The Department calculated the total estimated cost as $16,804 (=0.25 hour × $49.13/hour × 1,368 contractor firms) in the first year. This amounts to a 10-year annualized cost of $1,913 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $2,236 at a discount rate of 7 percent.

Lowering the cost of business for outfitter providers could incentivize small outfitters to enter the market. Likewise, it could also incentivize existing outfitters to hire more guides and to increase the hours of current employees. What all this translates into is more affordable guided tours and recreational services for visitors to Federal lands. And ultimately, greater access to outfitter services affords ordinary Americans a greater opportunity to experience “the great beauty of America's outdoors.” E.O. 13838.

Table 1 provides a summary of the quantified transfers and costs for this rule.

In 2014, the Small Business Association's Office of Advocacy provided comments on the regulations implementing E.O. 13658 (Establishing a Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors). The comment letter urged the Department to adopt a regulatory alternative that exempts recreational companies and provides regulatory cost savings for small businesses. In 2018, small business stakeholders also recommended this rule for regulatory reform under E.O. 13771. Per the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (as amended), the Department examined the regulatory requirements of the rule to determine whether they would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As indicated in Section B, Economic Analysis, the annualized burden is estimated to be $2,236 at a discount rate of 7 percent; therefore, the annualized cost per firm is estimated to be $1.63 (= $2,236 ÷ 1,368 firms). See Table 2.

Table 3 provides the annualized cost per firm as a percentage of revenue by firm size in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industry. As the table shows, the annualized burden as a percentage of the smallest employer's revenue would be far less than 1 percent. Accordingly, the Department certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. For the purposes of the UMRA, this rule does not impose any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any year.

The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule does not have federalism implications as outlined in E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

The Department has reviewed this rule under the terms of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) and determined it does not have “tribal implications.” The rule does not have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” As a result, no Tribal summary impact statement has been prepared.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends part 10 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Background

Under the JTPA, the Department of Labor provided financial assistance to certain recipients for the purpose of establishing programs to meet the job training needs of youth and adults facing serious barriers to employment. Section 167 of the JTPA contained nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions that prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship status or participation in a JTPA-funded program or activity. As amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, the JTPA provided that final regulations implementing Section 167 be issued within 90 days of the enactment date of the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992. On January 15, 1993, the Department issued the implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 34 for the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the JTPA. The rule applied to recipients of Federal financial assistance under the JTPA. The rule imposed general nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements, as well as certain affirmative obligations, such as data collection and recordkeeping requirements.

The JTPA was repealed by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The Department's regulations implementing WIA provided for the phased transition of the JTPA programs to WIA, to be fully completed by July 1, 2000. Section 188 of WIA contained substantially similar nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements as those contained in the JTPA. The Department issued regulations implementing WIA Section 188 at 29 CFR part 37 on November 12, 1999. WIA in turn was superseded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) in 2014. Section 188 of WIOA contains the same nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions as those in WIA. The Department issued final regulations implementing WIOA Section 188 at 29 CFR part 38 on December 2, 2016.

The purpose of this action is to rescind the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the JTPA. All funding under the JTPA, together with the obligation to comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements of Section 167, has now expired. The Section 167 regulations have been superseded by those implementing Section 188 of first WIA, then WIOA. The regulations at 29 CFR part 34 governed a program that has not been in operation for more than a decade and so were outdated and unnecessary. Therefore, the rescission of the regulations is ministerial in nature.

The Department effects this rescission consistent with the repeal of the JTPA in Section 199(b)(2) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220.

CRC issued the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity obligations of the JTPA pursuant to Secretary's Order 2-81, 50 FR 28853 (July 16, 1985), which authorized the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM), working through the Director, Office of Civil Rights (OCR), now CRC, to establish and formulate all policies, standards, and procedures, as well as to issue rules and regulations, governing the civil rights enforcement programs under grant-related nondiscrimination statutes. Secretary's Order 2-85 similarly delegated to OASAM, working through the Director, OCR, now CRC, exclusive authority for the implementation and enforcement of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the JTPA. Secretary's Orders 2-81 and 2-85 were canceled following the repeal of the JTPA. Secretary's Order 04-2000, 65 FR 69184 (Nov. 15, 2000), re-delegated the relevant responsibilities to CRC. The delegation in Secretary's Order 04-2000 covers CRC's rescission of the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the JTPA.

Direct final rulemaking in this instance is appropriate because the action is solely ministerial in nature, the underlying statute (Section 167 of the JTPA) has been superseded by the requirements of Section 188 of WIA and WIOA, and all funding under the JTPA has expired. Direct final rulemaking is used when a rule is noncontroversial and is expected to elicit no adverse comment. Here, direct final rulemaking is appropriate because the rule does nothing more than remove regulations for a program that is no longer operative. Under this circumstance, the use of direct final rulemaking satisfies APA requirements.

The Department is publishing concurrently with this direct final rule an identical notice of proposed rulemaking elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The companion proposed rule provides the procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event that any significant adverse comment is received. The comment period for this direct final rule runs concurrently with the comment period for the proposed rule. Any comments received in response to this direct final rule will also be considered as comments regarding the companion proposed rule.

If any significant adverse comments are received during the comment period, the Department will withdraw the direct final rule and proceed in developing a final rule using the usual notice-and-comment procedure. If no significant adverse comment is received during the comment period, the Department will publish a document withdrawing the proposed rule.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563. In addition, this rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This regulatory action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have federalism implications. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

This rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 1999, 5 U.S.C. 601 note.

Pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, CRC certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). As explained above, this rule is ministerial in nature and does not impose any additional regulatory burdens.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 that would require a tribal summary impact statement. The rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 12630 because it does not involve implementation of a policy that has takings implications or that could impose limitations on private property use.

The rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. The rule was: (1) Reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities; (2) written to minimize litigation; and (3) written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and to promote burden reduction.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department rescinds 29 CFR part 34 in its entirety as follows:

This is organized according to the following outline:

I. Does this action apply to me?

The list of potentially affected entities is provided in the Federal Register of August 1, 2018 (83 FR 37702) (FRL-9970-23). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In the Federal Register of August 1, 2018 (83 FR 37702), EPA issued direct final SNURs for all 145 chemical substances that are identified in this document. Because the Agency received adverse comments that relate to each of the 145 chemical substances, EPA is withdrawing the direct final SNURS issued for these 145 chemical substances. In addition to the Direct Final SNURs, elsewhere in the same issue of the Federal Register of August 1, 2018, EPA issued proposed SNURs covering these 145 chemical substances (83 FR 37455) (FRL-9981-16). EPA will address all adverse public comments in a subsequent final rule, based on the proposed rule.

EPA determined that this document is not subject to the 30-day delay of effective date generally required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because of the time limitations for publication in the Federal Register. This document must publish on or before the effective date of the direct final rule containing the direct final SNURs being withdrawn.

This action withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone into effect and which contain no new or amended requirements. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and Executive Order review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were discussed in the August 1, 2018 Federal Register. Those review requirements do not apply to this action because it is a withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended requirements.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As required by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is supported by a brief statement in Unit III.

I. Background

On March 13, 2018 (83 FR 10813), EPA proposed to approve into the Tennessee SIP the portion of the revisions to the Chattanooga-Hamilton County air quality rules in Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2, submitted by TDEC on behalf of Chattanooga-Hamilton County on June 25, 2008.1 The definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds” in Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2, “Definitions” is amended to be consistent with the Federal definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). In summary, the amendments add several compounds to the list of negligibly reactive compounds, make minor changes to paragraph 3 (related to preconditions to excluding compounds as VOCs), and adds paragraph 4 (related to test methods used for purposes of enforcement) and paragraph 5 (related to recordkeeping and reporting requirements for t-butyl acetate). The details of the Tennessee submissions and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 13, 2018. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed action.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Chattanooga-Hamilton County's air quality rules in Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2, “Definitions” effective June 11, 2008,2 to be consistent with the definition of VOC at 51.100. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.3

EPA is taking final action to approve a portion of a revision to the Chattanooga-Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP which amends the definition of “Volatile Organic Compounds” in the Chattanooga Code, Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2. This SIP revision also amends paragraph 3 and adds paragraphs 4 and 5 to the Chattanooga Code, Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2 definition of VOC. EPA has evaluated the relevant portions of Tennessee's June 25, 2008, SIP revision and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0268 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0268, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27743) (FRL-9978-41), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11150) filed by Spring Trading Company on behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey 07932. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate; CAS Reg. No. 481053-27-4. That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

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

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

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

8. The polymer's number average MW of 7,300 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate is 7,300 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

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

EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate.

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

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

The Codex has not established a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0289 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0289, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40272) (FRL-9981-10), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11127) filed by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry, LLC, 203 Dogwood Trail, Magnolia, TX 77354. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer (CAS Reg. No. 1323833-56-2). That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

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

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

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

7. The polymer's number average MW of 21,000 is greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.

Thus, maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number average MW of maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer is 21,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

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

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

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer.

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

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

The Codex has not established a MRL for maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of maltodextrin-vinyl pyrrolidinone copolymer from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0264 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0264, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27743) (FRL-9978-41), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11149) filed by Spring Trading Company on behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey 07932. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt; CAS Reg. No. 360564-31-4. That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments.

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

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

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6).

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

8. The polymer's number average MW of 2,300 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.

Thus, 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt.

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt is 2,300 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

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

EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt.

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

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

The Codex has not established a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt.

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl) benzene, ammonium salt from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

Background

The Head Start Program Performance Standards (81 FR 61294) define standards grantees and delegate agencies must implement to operate high quality Head Start or Early Head Start programs. As part of our effort to prioritize child safety, we strengthened our criminal background check procedures at 45 CFR 1302.90(b) in the final rule to reflect changes in the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, and to complement background check requirements in the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act of 2014, Public Law 113-186.

In addition to more comprehensive background check standards, we aim to strengthen partnerships between states and Head Start programs. At 45 CFR 1302.53(b) in the final rule, we require Head Start programs to actively promote coordinated early childhood systems, including those in their state. As part of these requirements, most Head Start programs must participate in QRIS, if they meet certain conditions.

Currently, Head Start programs must comply with background check requirements and participate in their states' QRIS, by September 30, 2018. We have already delayed the date for programs to comply with background check requirements in the final rule to align with the background check requirement deadline in the Child Care Development Block Grant Act of 2014, Public Law 113-186, through a document published in the Federal Register (82 FR 45205) on September 28, 2017. In the same Federal Register document, we extended the date for programs to participate in QRIS.

Through conversations with programs and states, we are concerned programs are still not be able to fully implement either background check or QRIS requirements by September 30, 2018, without assuming unintended regulatory and administrative burden.

Generally, 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(1) requires that before a person is hired, programs must conduct a sex offender registry check and obtain either a state or tribal criminal history records, including fingerprint checks, or a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal history records, including fingerprint checks.

In 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(2), (4), and (5), we afford programs 90 days to obtain whichever check they could not obtain before the person was hired, as well as child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available. However, programs must ensure newly hired employees do not have unsupervised access to children until their background check process is complete. A complete background check process consists of a sex offender registry check, state or tribal history records, including fingerprint check and FBI criminal history records, including fingerprint check, as well as a child abuse and neglect state registry check, if available. We also require programs to conduct complete background checks for each employee at least once every five years.

We believe programs require more time to implement systems to complete the background checks process listed at 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(2), (4), and (5) in our final rule. We aligned our compliance date for our background checks requirements with the background check requirement deadline the CCDBG Act because states that receive CCDBG funds are required to establish systems that implement the same set of comprehensive background checks for all child care teachers and staff. These systems will enable Head Start programs to meet background check requirements in the final rule.

We understand, however, states may request additional time-limited waivers of up to two years, in one year increments (i.e., potentially through September 30, 2020) to design systems that can accommodate our programs' background checks requests. To minimize burden on programs, we will extend the compliance date for 45 CFR 1302.90(b) to September 30, 2019. However, until Head Start programs have systems in place that fully comply with 45 CFR 1302.90(b), we require them to continue to adhere to the criminal record check requirements in section 648A of the Head Start Act, as amended by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134.

We require programs that meet certain conditions, except for American Indian and Alaska Native programs, to participate in state or local QRIS, as prescribed at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2) in the final rule. A QRIS is a systemic approach to assess, improve, and communicate the level of quality in early and school-age care and education programs within a state or locality. It awards quality ratings to programs that meet a set of criteria as defined by the QRIS. Criteria Head Start programs must meet to enter the QRIS and maintain participation greatly vary by state. We recognize many Head Start programs were already participating in their state and local quality improvement efforts before we introduced this standard to the final rule. Now that we have included this standard in the final rule, we understand programs have taken steps to participate in QRIS and that many states are assessing their QRIS with new Head Start QRIS participation policies. However, programs and states need additional time to align these systems. We want to minimize any unintentional burden on states that choose to adapt their systems to allow Head Start programs to participate in QRIS, as well as alleviate programs' concerns about meeting the current compliance date. To avoid duplication efforts between Head Start and QRIS monitoring systems as well as eliminate undue burden on Head Start programs and states as they work to align these systems, we will delay the compliance date for this standard for another year.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons for this finding in the notice.

We find good cause to waive public comment under section 553(b) of the APA because it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to provide for public comment in this instance. States, localities, and Head Start grantees will likely be subjected to undue and unnecessary administrative burden as they expend time trying to find ways to implement these standards without support from local and state law enforcement agencies and without QRIS systems that can accommodate Head Start programs. A period for public comment would only extend programs' concerns as they attempt to meet these standards by the compliance dates. Head Start programs are still required to comply with statutory background check requirements in the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134, until they can develop systems that will enable them to conduct complete background checks with fingerprints. Therefore, if we delay compliance dates, we will pose no harm or burden to programs or the public. Moreover, programs that already have systems in place to meet background check standards at 45 CFR 1302.90(b) and to participate in their states' QRIS at 45 CFR 1302.53(b)(2) may voluntarily come into compliance by the compliance date. However, programs that do not have systems in place have until September 30, 2019 to comply.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 3,312 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 3,212 mt, and is setting aside 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 20, 2018.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 146 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 TAC of dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 100 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 46 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure is in effect the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 21, 2018.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The 2018 total allowable catch (TAC) of northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 420 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2018 TAC of northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will be soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 50 mt, and is setting aside 370 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

While this closure remains in effect, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 20, 2018.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The annual allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,103 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the annual allowance of the 2018 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,090 mt and is setting aside the remaining 13 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by hook-and-line catcher/processors in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 20, 2018.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.