Federal Register Vol. 83, No.193,

On September 14, 2018, we published in the Federal Register a final rule (83 FR 46627-46639, Docket No. APHIS-2010-0082) amending our regulations governing the importation of fruits and vegetables by broadening our existing performance standard to provide for approval of all new fruits and vegetables for importation into the United States using a notice-based process. We also removed the region- or commodity-specific phytosanitary requirements currently found in those regulations. Likewise, we made an equivalent revision of the performance standard in our regulations governing the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the U.S. territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and removed the commodity-specific phytosanitary requirements from those regulations. That action will allow for the approval of requests to authorize the importation or interstate movement of new fruits and vegetables in a manner that enables a more flexible and responsive regulatory approach to evolving pest situations in both the United States and exporting countries. It will not, however, alter the science-based process in which the risk associated with importation or interstate movement of a given fruit or vegetable is evaluated or the manner in which risks associated with the importation or interstate movement of a fruit or vegetable are mitigated.

As part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of the final rule, we provided a summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIA/FRFA) prepared for the rule. In its discussion of Executive Order 13771, the summary provided a cost savings figure from an earlier iteration of the RIA/FRFA. The RIA/FRFA posted with the final rule contains the correct figure. In this document, we are correcting the text of the summary provided in the final rule.

In FR Doc. 2018-19984, published September 14, 2018 (83 FR 46627-46639), make the following correction:

1. On page 46637, in column 1, the second full paragraph is corrected to read as follows:

Interpreting these gains as cost savings accrued by using the quicker notice-based process rather than having to wait for rule promulgation, and in accordance with guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the primary annualized cost savings estimate for this rule is $7,895,000. This value is the midpoint estimate of cost savings annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate.

Authority for Action

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the BSAI FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.

This final rule implements Amendment 116. The Council submitted Amendment 116 for review by the Secretary of Commerce, and the notice of availability of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2018 (83 FR 23250), with comments invited through July 17, 2018. NMFS published the proposed rule for this action on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26237), with comments invited through July 6, 2018. A correction notice to the proposed rule was published on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28604). The Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 116 on August 10, 2018. NMFS received five comment letters containing nine individual comments from five unique individuals during the comment periods for Amendment 116 and the proposed rule. The five commenters consisted of three individuals and two companies representing CVs. A summary of these comments and the responses by NMFS are provided under the heading “Comments and Responses” below.

A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 116, the proposed regulations to implement Amendment 116, and the rationale for this action is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and is briefly summarized in this final rule.

The BSAI yellowfin sole directed fishery is managed under a total allowable catch (TAC) limit with portions of the TAC allocated to the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, the Amendment 80 sector, and the BSAI TLAS. The BSAI TLAS comprises all BSAI trawl fishery participants not in the CDQ Program or Amendment 80 sector. The Council's intent in establishing the BSAI TLAS was to provide harvesting opportunities for American Fisheries Act (AFA) catcher/processors (CPs), AFA CVs, and non-AFA CVs. The current BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery is almost entirely an offshore fishery composed of two primary harvesting groups: (1) AFA CPs, and (2) AFA and non-AFA CVs delivering yellowfin sole to AFA and Amendment 80 CPs or stationary floating processors operating as motherships. A “mothership” is defined as a vessel that receives and processes groundfish from other vessels (see definition at 50 CFR 679.2) and for purposes of this rule includes stationary floating processors.

Since 2015, the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery has seen dramatic increases in CV and mothership participation as compared to the first seven years of the fishery (2008 through 2014). Also since 2015, the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC has been more fully harvested and the fishing season has grown shorter as the TAC has been reached earlier. The Analysis prepared for this action notes that the potential exists for up to seven additional Amendment 80 CPs to participate as motherships in the fishery, providing processing capacity for up to 21 additional CVs, which would put greater fishing pressure on the fishery. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that limiting access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by CVs delivering to motherships is needed given the expectation of additional capacity entering the fishery. The Council adopted its preferred alternative for Amendment 116 at its June 2017 meeting.

This final rule balances protections for the benefits from the fishery for long-time, historic, and recent participants, given the increasing number of participants in the fishery and shorter fishing seasons. This final rule promotes stability in the fishery by reducing the risk of a race for fish, lengthening the fishing season, and creating a safer, more predictable fishery. That stability will also minimize the potential for increased halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) rates, which could lead to closure of the fishery before the TAC is fully harvested.

This final rule establishes the requirement that a vessel used to harvest yellowfin sole in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver that catch to a mothership must be designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. This final rule also establishes the eligibility criteria and issuance process for this new endorsement. Vessels not designated on groundfish LLP licenses that receive the endorsement are prohibited from participating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and delivering their catch to a mothership for processing. This final rule does not preclude any vessel from delivering BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to a shoreside processor. This final rule also does not preclude a vessel without a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement from delivering incidental catch of yellowfin sole that is caught while participating in other directed fisheries to a mothership for processing. Finally, this final action does not preclude a vessel from participating as a CP and processing its own catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.

Under this action, NMFS will issue a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement to a groundfish LLP license with a Bering Sea trawl endorsement if (1) the groundfish LLP license is credited with at least one legal trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery; and (2) the credited legal trip target landing was to a mothership in any one year of the qualifying period (2008 through 2015). Under this final rule, the term “trip target” is defined as a groundfish species that is retained in an amount greater than the retained amount of any other groundfish species for that trip. Where a vessel that made at least one trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS directed fishery from 2008 through 2015 was designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period, all groundfish LLP licenses on which the vessel was designated and was used to make a trip target landing in a BSAI TLAS fishery during the qualifying period are eligible to be credited with the qualifying landings made by the vessel. However, none of these groundfish LLP licenses will be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement from NMFS until the vessel owner notifies NMFS in writing to identify which single groundfish LLP license is to be credited with the qualifying landing(s). NMFS anticipates that a total of eight groundfish LLP licenses will receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under this final rule, resulting in up to eight vessels that may participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver their catch to a mothership.

This final rule limits access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by CVs delivering to motherships to those CVs designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

In order to implement Amendment 116, this final rule—

• Authorizes delivery of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to motherships by only those vessels designated on a groundfish LLP license endorsed for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.

• Includes the provisions that are necessary for a groundfish LLP license to qualify for and receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

• Prohibits the delivery of yellowfin sole harvested with trawl gear in the BSAI TLAS directed fishery to a mothership without a copy of a valid LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

• Lists those groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined are eligible, will be credited with qualifying landings, and will receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under this final rule.

• Lists those pairs of groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined are eligible, but will not be credited with qualifying landings and will not receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement until the vessel owner notifies NMFS which single groundfish LLP license on which the vessel was designated during the qualifying period NMFS should credit with the qualifying landings.

• Establishes the process for notifying groundfish LLP license holders of eligibility for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

• Establishes the process for the issuance of revised groundfish LLP licenses with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

• Establishes an administrative adjudicative process to challenge NMFS's determinations on eligibility for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

Additional detail about the rationale for and effect of the regulatory changes in this rule is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the Analysis for this action.

The following provides a brief summary of the regulatory changes made by this final rule.

This final rule adds § 679.7(i)(11) to prohibit the delivery of yellowfin sole harvested with trawl gear in the BSAI TLAS directed fishery to a mothership without a copy of a valid LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement except as provided in § 679.4(k)(2).

This final rule adds § 679.4(k)(14) to include the provisions that are necessary to qualify for, and receive, a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. Section 679.4(k)(14) establishes a notification process for holders of groundfish LLP licenses eligible and ineligible for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. This section also establishes an administrative adjudicative process to challenge NMFS's determinations on eligibility for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

This final rule adds Table 52 to part 679 to list those groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined are eligible, will be credited with qualifying landings, and will receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under this final rule.

This final rule also adds Table 53 to part 679 to list those pairs of groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined are eligible, but are not credited with qualifying landings. One groundfish LLP license from each pair in Table 53 will be credited with qualifying landings and will receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement once the vessel owner notifies NMFS in writing which one of the pair is selected to be credited with the qualifying landings and receive the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.

NMFS received five comment letters containing nine individual comments from five unique individuals during the comment periods for Amendment 116 and the proposed rule. The five commenters consisted of three individuals and two companies. Four comments did not support this action, three comments supported this action, and two comments addressed topics that were outside the scope of this action.

In responding to these comments, reference to Amendment 116, unless otherwise noted, means Amendment 116 and this final rule implementing Amendment 116.

Comment 1: This rule would eliminate most of the AFA and non-AFA CVs from harvesting yellowfin sole in the trawl limited access fishery and allow AFA CPs to continue to harvest as much as they can. That means the elimination of a very good fishing opportunity for most of the small CVs, in favor of further consolidation among the AFA CPs, which violates AFA Section 211. This proposed action is a de-facto exclusive allocation to a small, closed class of participants who have already shown their intention to privately organize and manage the fishery with harvest allocation agreements in 2016 and before. In addition, this proposed action conflicts with NMFS's policy allowing Amendment 80 vessels to participate as motherships in the BSAI TLAS fishery by limiting the opportunities for Amendment 80 vessels to partner with CVs.

Response: NMFS disagrees that this final rule violates AFA section 211, creates a de-facto allocation, or conflicts with NMFS policy regarding the ability of Amendment 80 vessels to act as motherships. AFA section 211(a) specifies that: “The North Pacific Council shall recommend for approval by the Secretary such conservation and management measures as it determines necessary to protect fisheries under its jurisdiction and the participants in those fisheries, including processors, from adverse impacts caused by this Act or fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery.” This provision is intended to protect non-AFA vessels from potential negative impacts associated with the directed pollock fishery created by the AFA.

This action is consistent with the provisions of section 211 of the AFA for several reasons. This action does not modify (i.e., increase) the amount of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole that may be harvested by AFA CPs or CVs. Further, this action does not change (i.e., decrease) the allocation of BSAI yellowfin sole to the Amendment 80 sector or the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. In developing this action, the Council considered and recommended management measures for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery that it determined were necessary to protect both AFA and non-AFA vessels from the negative impacts of a potential race for fish in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. The final rule does not provide benefits to AFA vessels related to their rights in the directed pollock fishery, nor does it provide benefits to AFA vessels at the expense of non-AFA vessels. Under this action, AFA CPs and CVs are still subject to the sideboard provisions that limit harvests of AFA CPs and CVs established by the final rule implementing Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007) and in regulations at § 679.64(a) and (b), which were created to minimize potential adverse impacts caused by the AFA pursuant to AFA section 211. In the final rule implementing Amendment 80, NMFS noted that the Council considered and recommended “management measures applicable to the AFA sector that it determined necessary to protect other fisheries during the development of the [Amendment 80] Program” (see 72 FR 5267).

This final rule is not expected to significantly alter the amount of yellowfin sole that is harvested by AFA CPs. Since 2015, the proportion of harvest by AFA CPs has decreased, not increased, relative to the proportion of harvest by CVs. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis states that, from 2008 through 2014, AFA CPs harvested approximately 85 percent of the total catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. In 2015, 2016, and 2017 (the last year of complete data), AFA CPs have harvested 55 percent, 51 percent, and 42 percent of the total catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, respectively (see Section 2.7.1.1). This final rule limits the number of CVs that may deliver catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to motherships to approximately the number of CVs that have participated in recent years. This final rule is not expected to result in an increase in catch by AFA CPs.

This final rule does not create a closed class of participants in the fishery. This final rule does not limit the number or specific AFA or non-AFA CPs that can participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, although AFA CPs are constrained by sideboard limits established under Amendment 80. This final rule does not establish a closed class of AFA or non-AFA CVs, because it does not preclude CVs from delivering catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to shoreside processors; this action limits only the number of CVs that deliver to motherships. Although the Analysis notes that currently CVs are not delivering harvests in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to shoreside processors, should such markets develop, this final rule would not limit the ability of existing or new CVs from harvesting and delivering BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to shoreside processors.

This final rule does not establish or require any private agreements among fishery participants in order to participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. This final rule was developed in response to the Council's and NMFS's concerns over the developing “race for fish,” which has already shortened the fishing season and raised management, conservation, and safety issues detailed in the preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 26237, June 6, 2018). Because these concerns stem directly from the recent, dramatic increase in participation in this fishery by CVs delivering to motherships, the Council and NMFS determined that the appropriate response is to limit additional participation to provide stability to the fishery and predictability for participants and managers. This limitation allows for continued participation by the majority of CVs that have historically fished BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and delivered to motherships. Only two CVs that have shown interest in participating in the fishery, notably after the Council signaled its intent to limit participation by CVs in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery, are precluded from future participation under this rule.

This final rule is consistent with the establishment of the BSAI TLAS under Amendment 80, defined in regulations at § 679.2 as all other BSAI trawl fishery participants not in the Amendment 80 or CDQ sectors, and specifically includes AFA CPs, AFA CVs, and non-AFA CVs. The final rule implementing Amendment 80 makes clear that the BSAI TLAS fisheries were created specifically to preserve the opportunity for such vessels to fish in the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the BSAI. This action does not favor AFA or non-AFA CVs. NMFS has determined that of the ten groundfish LLP licenses with CV designations eligible for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement, three are endorsed as AFA groundfish LLP licenses, while the remaining seven have no AFA or Amendment 80 endorsement.

This final rule implementing Amendment 116 is also consistent with the determination under Amendment 80 that Amendment 80 vessels could be used as motherships to receive harvest from CVs fishing in the BSAI TLAS fisheries. The final rule implementing Amendment 80 noted that it allowed the continued participation of one Amendment 80 vessel that had historically been used as a mothership and acknowledged potential future growth in the use of Amendment 80 vessels as motherships in the BSAI TLAS. Under this rule Amendment 80 vessels can still act as motherships and receive deliveries of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole from CVs with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. However, NMFS and the Council believe that further growth of CVs delivering to motherships must be limited at this time to maintain a balance between the ability of participants to fully harvest the TAC and the management, conservation, and safety concerns that result from accelerated harvest caused by continued increase in participation.

Comment 2: As originally intended by NMFS, the partnerships between CVs and Amendment 80 mothership operations are lucrative for CVs, their crews, and the State of Alaska. Partnerships between Amendment 80 vessels and CVs allow CVs the opportunity to harvest yellowfin sole and earn revenue during times they would not otherwise be fishing. This puts Alaskan vessels and crew to work during times that they would otherwise be sitting idle and collecting unemployment. The BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery provides CVs significant, predictable income that CV owners can invest into Alaska and for new halibut reduction technology. Restricting the CV fleet to eight vessels under this proposed rule will divert this revenue to the largest fishing companies, the AFA CP owners, who already receive massive revenue from their protected pollock monopoly.

Response: Capping the number of CVs delivering TLAS yellowfin sole to motherships will not significantly reduce CV participation in the fishery from historic levels. Under this rule, it is anticipated that eight groundfish LLPs will qualify for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. CV participation in the fishery has never exceeded nine vessels in any one year. As noted in the response to Comment 1, the AFA CP sector is still subject to BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole sideboard limits as required at § 679.64(a) and (b). Also noted in the response to Comment 1, the harvest has shifted from CPs harvesting the majority of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to CVs harvesting a slight majority of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC in recent years. The Analysis (Section 2.7.1.1) states that from 2008 through 2014 AFA CPs harvested approximately 85 percent of the total catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. In 2015, 2016, and 2017 (the last year of complete data), AFA CPs have harvested 55 percent, 51 percent, and 42 percent of the total catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, respectively (see Section 2.7.1.1). This final rule limits the number of CVs that may deliver catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to motherships to approximately the number of CVs that have participated in recent years, and is not expected to result in an increase in catch by AFA CPs. Therefore, this rule is not expected to divert revenue from the CV sector to the CP sector.

Comment 3: The proposed rule described the Council's concern regarding “the likelihood of decreasing benefits from the yellowfin sole TLAS fishery for long-time, historic, and recent participants given the increasing number of participants in the fishery and shorter fishing seasons.” The proposed action should not proceed based on “dependency” because (a) there is no legal “dependency” by the AFA CPs on the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, and (b) mere “dependency” of a favored set of companies is not a legally sufficient reason under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to exclude their competitors from a fishery.

Response: This action does not protect any particular group of vessels based on dependency on this fishery. As explained in the response to Comment 1, this action is consistent with the final rule implementing Amendment 80, which established criteria for participation in the BSAI TLAS fisheries. In developing this final rule to implement Amendment 116, the Council and NMFS based eligibility qualifications on historic participation, which is described in the rule as at least one legal trip target landing of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed catch to a mothership in any one year during the qualifying period (2008 through 2015). The Council and NMFS did not consider dependency on this fishery by participants and did not equate the fishery's benefits to long-time, historic, and recent participants with dependency on the fishery by those participants. To the extent that historic participation was taken into account in the development of this rule, it was the historic participation of CVs, rather than the historic participation of CPs. Further, in considering historic participation, the Council chose the more inclusive alternative that required participation in the fishery in any one year during the qualifying period, rather than any two years. For the eight CVs designated on a groundfish LLP license eligible to participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under this final rule, participation in the fishery ranged from one to seven years. Of those eight vessels, five participated in the fishery for only one of the eight qualifying years.

Comment 4: These regulations should not proceed in the guise of a halibut bycatch (PSC) management program. The Analysis states that under the status quo management, halibut PSC usage in the fishery will likely continue at similar levels. There are no data to support the creation of a closed class of participants on the basis of halibut bycatch concerns in the status quo fishery. Halibut bycatch has been reduced with CVs competing for lower halibut PSC in the TLAS. The entrance of new CVs into the fishery has created a new tool promoting bycatch reduction through competition between harvesters for the lowest halibut bycatch rates. The proposed regulations may actually reverse the bycatch reduction gains achieved by the competition between CPs and CVs.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that the halibut PSC in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery varies from year-to-year for a variety of reasons. With the exception of 2013, halibut PSC rates are generally low and within the PSC limits set through the annual specifications process. However, the preamble to the proposed rule states that this action is necessary to mitigate the risk that a “race for fish” could develop, which could increase halibut PSC rates. The Analysis (Section 2.7.1.2) notes that overall, under status quo, halibut PSC usage in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery will likely continue at similar levels if participation is stable. However, the Council noted the increase in the number of participating CVs that deliver to motherships in recent years and anticipated that such participation would continue to increase without action to curtail the increase. The recent increased participation, combined with recent lower BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole allocations, has resulted in a fully utilized fishery with increasingly shorter fishing seasons. Shorter fishing seasons can enhance the incentives for vessels to harvest quickly in order to gain a greater share of the TAC before it is fully harvested and the fishery is closed. These circumstances create a substantial disincentive for harvesters to take actions to reduce bycatch use and waste, particularly if those actions could reduce groundfish catch rates. This increases the potential for higher halibut PSC rates. Accordingly, the Analysis (Section 2.7.1.2 and 3.2.2.1) notes that by limiting the level of participation by CVs, this action has the potential to mitigate future increases in halibut PSC in this fishery by relieving the harvest pressure and providing more flexibility in fishing operations, which allows vessels to better avoid halibut PSC. In this way, this action may help maintain current low levels or even decrease halibut PSC in the fishery.

Further, NMFS believes that limiting the number of CVs delivering to motherships provides more stability and predictability in the fishery over the long term. This can facilitate better communication among participants and provide a better opportunity to implement a voluntary best practices agreement. Section 2.7.1.2 of the Analysis describes this best practices agreement as “target rates of halibut mortality, reporting real-time halibut mortality and location of the mortality, and established procedures for sharing halibut mortality information via Sea-State [a private third-party data manager]. In some years, the agreement has also included informal apportionment of remaining halibut mortality among participating vessels that fish late in the year.” This action does not preclude competition between CPs and CVs to reduce halibut PSC rates from continuing to help maintain the consistently low rates of halibut bycatch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.

Comment 5: The proposed rule states that this action does not create a Limited Access Privilege (LAP) program. We believe the proposed action is a LAP program. The AFA-CP companies have previously operated in the TLAS subject to a voluntary cooperative agreement that these companies have refused to produce to NMFS or other participants. We believe that this cooperative agreement included allocation of harvest among its members. Thus, this action likely will have the effect of allocating species to the participants who may revert to their previously agreed and undisclosed allocation agreement.

Response: As noted in the proposed rule, Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1802) defines a LAP as a Federal permit issued as part of a limited access system under section 303A to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit or units representing a portion of the TAC of the fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person and includes an individual fishing quota but does not include community development quotas. This final rule limits the number of groundfish LLP licenses, and therefore the number of CVs, that could be used to harvest BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and deliver that harvest to a mothership, but it does not assign a portion of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC for exclusive use by a person. An individual owner of a groundfish LLP license that receives an endorsement would not be allocated a specific amount of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole for the owner's exclusive use. All vessels eligible to participate in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, including CPs as well as CVs designated on groundfish LLP licenses with the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement, will continue to compete with each other in harvesting the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC rather than act together as one entity. Additionally, although CVs have not historically delivered their catch of yellowfin sole to shore-based processing plants, this proposed action does not preclude CVs from conducting directed fishing for BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and delivering that harvest to shore-based processing plants. This proposed action does not limit the amount of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole that can be harvested by a CV designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement; rather, it limits the number of CVs that are eligible to participate in the directed fishery and deliver their harvest to a mothership. This action does not limit CPs participating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery or assign a portion of the TAC for exclusive use by individual CPs or any specific group of CPs. Voluntary cooperative agreements are not equivalent to a LAP program created by NMFS. Moreover, NMFS maintains the ability to reallocate BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC to the Amendment 80 sector, if NMFS determines that it will go unharvested.

Comment 6: We support this action, because it tightens eligibility of CVs and will decelerate the race for fish to avoid the “Tragedy of the Commons,” whereby the common resource is depleted as the number of vessels harvesting fish increases, and over time the survival of the fish species itself is threatened. The recent influx of CV effort has resulted in shortened seasons and affects participants historically dependent on the fishery. The additional CV effort also reduces incentives and opportunities for participants to adopt measures to reduce halibut bycatch and associated mortality.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment in support of Amendment 116.

Comment 7: We support this action, because it will (1) allow for a reasonable level of CV participation in the offshore sector without limiting potential markets for sales of catch by qualifying vessels, (2) maintain competition for catches and landings of those catches, (3) reduce the race for fish, (4) protect historically dependent participants, and (5) allow for reasonable measures to reduce halibut bycatch mortality. The commenter also noted that the onshore sector is not constrained by this rule and that there is no restriction on the number of CVs that could deliver shoreside, which would allow for new entrants.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment in support of Amendment 116.

Comment 8: The correction to the proposed rule (83 FR 28604; June 20, 2018) is appropriate, as is NMFS's interpretation of the Council's motion overall. Further, NMFS's interpretation of the Council's motion to treat stationary floating processors as motherships is consistent with the analysis of alternatives and the purpose and need statement of the Council, which explicitly mentioned a concern with CV deliveries to floating processors.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment in support of the correction to the proposed rule. The definition of a “mothership” in 679.2 includes vessels that are operating as “stationary floating processors” as that term is defined in 679.2. In addition, Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis notes that two stationary floating processors participated in the fishery as motherships in 2008. Although those stationary floating processors did not participate in the fishery after 2008, data from landings to those vessels were included in the analysis of impacts of the alternatives.

Comment 9: NMFS received two comments addressing issues outside the scope of this action. One commenter did not support this action because of the effects of fishing on natural resources, including marine mammals, and suggested that NMFS cut the yellowfin sole quota by 50 percent. One commenter did not support this action and suggested that NMFS further limit industrial-level commercial fishing in favor of small, traditional fishing boats to reduce the impact of overfishing on natural resources and revitalize local fishing economy and tourism.

Response: These comments address management issues that are beyond the scope of Amendment 116 and this regulatory action. This final rule does not change the process of allocating quota or establishing TACs or sideboard limits under the AFA or Amendment 80 Programs, nor will this final rule change specific management measures that govern the harvest of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole, such as fishing location, timing, effort, or authorized gear types. This final rule limits access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery by CVs that deliver to motherships by requiring that those CVs be designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole CV endorsement and establishes eligibility criteria for such an endorsement.

Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for each agency's information collection. Section 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which OMB approval numbers have been issued. Because this final rule adds a new collection-of-information for recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to reference correctly the section resulting from this final rule.

This final rule contains no substantive changes from the proposed rule, as corrected by the correction notice published on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28604). The final rule includes minor changes to the proposed rule text to correct citations and remove redundant language. These changes include: (1) Removed “as defined at 679.2” throughout the final rule; (2) Corrected incorrect references to other sections of the rule; and (3) Removed the word “proposed” when referring to new Tables 52 and 53.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that Amendment 116 to the BSAI FMP and this final rule are necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish fishery and are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

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

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to groundfish LLP license holders that also serves as small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of the guide, i.e., groundfish LLP license holder letter, will be sent to all holders of groundfish LLP license for the Bering Sea trawl fisheries. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request from the Alaska Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). This action does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preambles. Copies of the proposed rule, the correction notice, and this final rule are available from the NMFS website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

This FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support this action.

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for and objectives of the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made to the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in this final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

A description of this final rule and the need for and objectives of this rule are contained in the preamble to this final rule and the preambles to the proposed rule (83 FR 26237, June 6, 2018) and the correction notice (83 FR 28604, June 20, 2018), and are not repeated here.

NMFS published the proposed rule on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26237), and a correction notice to the proposed rule on June 20, 2018 (83 FR 28604). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 6, 2018. The comment period for the notice of availability for Amendment 116 closed on July 17, 2018. NMFS received five letters of public comment on the proposed rule and Amendment 116. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule.

NMFS received no comments specifically on the IRFA. However, one of the comments supported this action, because it provides operational relief to the owners and operators of trawl CVs.

This final rule directly regulates (1) holders of groundfish LLP licenses that authorize a vessel designated on the LLP license to harvest groundfish using trawl gear in the Bering Sea, and (2) vessel owners that must choose one of two LLP licenses on which the vessel was designated during the qualifying period. Based on the best available and most recent complete data from 2008 through 2017, 163 groundfish LLP license holders and five vessel owners will be directly regulated by this action.

For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

The RFA requires consideration of affiliations between entities for the purpose of assessing whether an entity is classified as small. The AFA pollock and Amendment 80 cooperatives are types of affiliation between entities. All of the AFA and Amendment 80 cooperatives have gross annual revenues that are substantially greater than $11 million. Therefore, NMFS considers members in these cooperatives “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes.

Of the 163 groundfish LLP license holders directly regulated by this action, 128 were members of an AFA cooperative and 26 were members of an Amendment 80 cooperative in 2017. Therefore, NMFS considers those 154 groundfish LLP license holders to be “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes. All of the groundfish LLP licenses with designated vessels that participated in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and delivered catch to a mothership from 2008 through 2017 were affiliated with either an AFA or an Amendment 80 cooperative in 2017. NMFS therefore considers these LLP license holders to be “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes.

The remaining nine groundfish LLP license holders are not affiliated with AFA or Amendment 80 cooperatives and are assumed to be small entities directly regulated by this action for purposes of the RFA. All five vessel owners who are considered regulated entities under this final rule were affiliated with either an AFA pollock or an Amendment 80 cooperative in 2017. Therefore, NMFS considers them “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes. This FRFA assumes that each vessel owner and each groundfish LLP license holder is a unique entity; therefore, the total number of directly regulated entities may be an overestimate because some vessel owners and groundfish LLP license holders are likely affiliated through common ownership. These potential affiliations are not known with the best available data and cannot be predicted.

This final rule does not add additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements for the vessels that choose to submit an appeal. An appeal process exists for LLP license endorsement issuance. No small entity is subject to reporting requirements that are in addition to or different from the requirements that apply to all directly regulated entities. No unique professional skills are needed for the LLP license or vessel owners or operators to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule. This final rule does not implement or increase any fees that NMFS collects from directly regulated entities. The Analysis identifies no operational costs of the endorsement (see ADDRESSES).

None of the nine regulated small entities identified by NMFS have previously delivered TLAS YFS to a mothership. This rule will not affect existing delivery patterns of those vessels, and possible future impacts to these vessels could not be quantified. However, none of the alternatives considered by the Council that would have avoided regulating these small entities would have accomplished the stated objectives of the rule. Each of those alternatives would have allowed increased catcher vessel participation under certain conditions and thereby failed to mitigate the risk of a race for fish. The Council and NMFS selected the alternative in this rule because it best achieves their stated policy objectives.

This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA, which have been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-0766. The public reporting burden for the collection-of-information requirements in this final rule is estimated to average 2 hours per response for a one-time Election to Assign Qualifying Landings to an LLP license and 4 hours per response to submit an appeal, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Alaska Region at the ADDRESSES above, and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.

On July 14, 2017, the Department published a Request for Comments in the Federal Register (82 FR 32493) to get feedback from the public on how it could achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations. The Department sought comments on the Department regulations, guidance documents, and collections of information that members of the public believe should be removed or modified to alleviate unnecessary burdens. The Department also requested economic data to support any proposed changes.

In response to the July 14, 2017 request for comments, the Department received several comments related to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Department has concluded its review of two of the comments and has accepted one of the changes suggested. The Department received several additional comments, which we are beginning to review. Any response to these additional comments, none of which are relevant to this rulemaking, will be done via a separate rule. These comments and the Department's responses are set forth below. The Department has also received feedback from the public, the regulated industry, and other government and private sector experts, through a variety of formal and informal channels, that several entries on the United States Munitions List (USML) are controlling items that are, or soon will be, in normal commercial use. The Department has determined that it can revise certain entries in a manner consistent with the objectives set forth in Executive Order 13777 to remove the controls on these items, while maintaining control on those items that warrant continued control on the USML.

One commenter requested that the Department eliminate the requirement to return licenses for tech data, in § 123.22(b)(3)(i) and (c)(2) (all citations are to 22 CFR). Exporters are required to return licenses for the export of technical data to the Department after the initial export of all of the approved technical data. Exporters are also required to return all licenses that are exported against, but not electronically decremented. The Department has reviewed the comments and the use of the returned licenses and has determined that it can garner the necessary information via other means. The Department accepts these changes and will remove the relevant language in § 123.22(b)(3)(i) and (c)(2).

Two commenters requested that the Department eliminate the Initial Export Notification in § 123.22(b)(3)(ii). The Department does not accept these changes. Section 123.22(b)(3)(ii) requires that prior to the initial export of any technical data or defense services under an Agreement, the Agreement holder inform DDTC that exports are beginning. These notifications are for exports of defense articles and defense services that are generally not reported to the U.S. government through the Automated Export System and as such, these notifications are often the only way that the Department knows that the export has occurred.

Two commenters requested that the Department eliminate the notification of termination in § 124.6. The Department does not accept these changes. Section 124.6 requires that an Agreement holder inform DDTC of the impending termination of the agreement not less than 30 days prior to the expiration date of such agreement. The Department uses this notification as part of its compliance assessment practices. However, the Department is undertaking a modernization of its IT systems for export licensing and will review whether an IT solution can be put in place to allow the elimination of this notification requirement.

Two commenters requested that the Department eliminate the annual status letter on agreements in § 124.4(a). The Department does not accept these changes. Section 124.4(a) requires that if the agreement is not concluded within one year of the date of approval, the applicant notify DDTC in writing and provide the status of the agreement, unless and until the agreement is concluded, or a decision is made not to conclude the agreement. The Department uses this notification as part of its compliance assessment practices.

Two commenters requested that the Department eliminate the requirement in § 123.1(c)(4) that purchase documents be submitted with licenses in furtherance of agreements. The Department does not accept these changes. Submitting purchase documentation with a license application is an important tool to ensure only bona fide transactions are approved and to minimize the risk of diversion of approved exports.

One commenter requested that the Department eliminate the requirement that defense articles be U.S. origin to use the temporary import exemption in § 123.4(a)(1). The Department does not accept this change. Non-U.S.-origin defense articles sent to the United States for repair and maintenance do not require approval from the U.S. government for future reexports and retransfers, the way that U.S.-origin defense articles do. Therefore, the Department does not allow non-U.S. origin defense articles to be sent to the United States for servicing without individually approving the end-use and end-user.

One commenter requested that the Department create an exemption for temporary exports of defense articles for repair/replacement by foreign Original Equipment Manufacturer (“OEM”). The Department believes that it may be possible to implement such an exemption in a way that maintains U.S. foreign policy and national security interests. The Department is working on this effort and any change to the ITAR to this effect will be published separately.

One commenter requested that the Department streamline the Canadian Exemption in § 126.5 by integrating the excluded technologies list (ETL), currently in Supplement No. 1 to part 126, into § 126.5. The Department does not accept this change. The ETL applies to the Canadian Exemption, as well as the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaties with Australia and the United Kingdom; therefore, the utility of the ETL would be reduced if it were moved out of Supplement No. 1 to part 126 and the Department were required to recreate it in the sections for the treaties as well.

One commenter requested that the Department implement certain definitions that were proposed in the Department's June 6, 2015 Federal Register proposed rule (80 FR 31525). The Department continues to work on the definitions that were not included in the June 3, 2016 interim final rule (81 FR 35611) or the September 8, 2016 final rule (81 FR 62004). Any change to the ITAR to this effect will be published separately.

One commenter requested that the Department establish a definition of manufacturing. The Department believes that the implementation of a definition for manufacturing is a matter that should be subject to public review and comment. Any change to the ITAR to this effect will be published separately.

One commenter asserted that the definition of U.S. person in the ITAR does not include U.S. citizens. This is incorrect. Section 120.15 defines U.S. persons to include protected individuals as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). This provision includes all U.S. citizens within the scope of protected individuals.

One commenter asserted that there is an inconsistency between the definition of defense service in § 120.9 and the definition of export in § 120.17 and requested that the Department revise them. The Department does not accept this change. The definition of defense service defines when a defense service occurs. The definition of export, in part, describes when the performance of a defense service constitutes an export and requires approval from the Department prior to performance.

One commenter noted that there is an inconsistency between the text in USML Category IV(i) and XV(f) related to mission integration and launch failure analysis, as the text in Category IV(i) includes the limiter “to a foreign person,” which the text in Category XV(f) does not. The commenter suggested resolving this inconsistency. The Department accepts this change, and revises USML Category XV(f) to achieve consistency between the provisions. However, the Department notes that this does not change the scope of the controls. The definition of export, as detailed above, provides that an export of a defense service occurs when it is performed for, or on behalf of, a foreign person.

One commenter requested that the Department remove the record-keeping requirement in § 125.6(a) and (b), asserting that they are duplicative of the record keeping requirement in § 123.22(b)(3)(ii). The Department does not accept this change. The requirement in § 123.22(b)(3)(ii) is only to maintain records that exist. The requirement in § 125.6 is to create documents that provide the necessary assurance against diversion and information about the transaction to allow these exports to occur under exemptions, without individual licenses for each export.

One commenter requested that the Department implement an IT system that includes a single input and single output, to reduce compliance burdens. The Department is undertaking to modernize its IT systems for export licensing and will review whether an IT solution can be put in place to allow a single output document that sufficiently protects U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

The Department received feedback from industry that industry is not certain as to the jurisdiction of certain satellites and spacecraft thrusters. Some manufacturers reclassified satellites and spacecraft thrusters, formerly controlled under USML Category XV, as rocket engines under USML Category IV(d), following the revisions to USML Category XV in 2014 and 2017. Some manufacturers reclassified these same, or similar, thrusters as subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) under ECCN 9A515. Thrusters for satellites and spacecraft may meet certain USML Category IV(d) controls, such as based on total impulse, but such thrusters are not rocket or missile power plants per se. Therefore, the Department is adding Note 2 to USML Category IV(d) to clarify that it does not control such thrusters. For controls on satellite and spacecraft thrusters, exporters should review USML Category XV(e)(12) and ECCN 9A515.

The Department received feedback from industry that, as currently structured, USML Category V maintains control over the items described in the EAR on the Commerce Control List (CCL) in Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 1C608, if they include a material described in USML Category V. The Department added a new Note 3 to USML Category V to clarify that for materials described in USML Category V, except for the materials described in paragraph (c)(6), (h), or (i), approval from the Department is not required for any export, reexport, or retransfer when the defense articles are incorporated into an item subject to the EAR and classified under ECCN 1C608.

The Department received feedback from industry that commercial drone technologies have progressed to the state where the industry is developing flight control systems for cooperative operations, and there is concern that the control text in USML Category VIII(h)(12), for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flight control systems and vehicle management systems with swarming capability, will capture these commercial drone flight control systems and vehicle management systems. The Department believes that swarming is a military capability that continues to warrant control on the USML. However, the current text describes swarming capabilities as UAVs interacting with each other to avoid collisions and stay together, or, if weaponized, coordinate targeting. The Department believes that this control could be more precise.

Swarming is not simply the ability to avoid collisions, maintain formation, and work cooperatively. Swarming requires the ability to adapt in real-time to changes in operational/threat environment or to deliver munitions on a target. Therefore, the Department updated USML Category VIII(h)(12).

The Department received feedback from industry that commercial drones will make use of airborne radars that are currently described by the control text in USML Category XI(a)(3)(i) and XI(a)(3)(xii). The Department recognizes the importance of commercial drones to the U.S. economy and the importance that those drones have effective detect-and-avoid radar to minimize collisions. Therefore, the Department has added a note to USML Category XI(a)(3)(i), to allow commodity jurisdiction reviews for radars, such as those meeting the criteria of the forthcoming Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) to support sense and avoid operations of UAVs, and revised the Note to USML Category XI(a)(3)(xii) to increase the power threshold of articles that are not controlled by the paragraph.

The Department received feedback from industry that the control text in USML Category XI(c)(4) will capture electronic components required for 5G wireless technology. The Department does not intend the USML to include civil communications systems. Therefore, the Department revised USML Category XI(c)(4) to implement power thresholds that will exclude those components necessary for 5G wireless technology, but maintain control on those items that do provide the United States a critical military or intelligence advantage.

Interested parties may submit comments within 45 days of the date of publication. Comments received after that date may be considered if feasible, but consideration cannot be assured. Those submitting comments should not include any personally identifying information they do not desire to be made public or information for which a claim of confidentiality is asserted because those comments and/or transmittal emails will be made available for public inspection and copying after the close of the comment period via the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls website at www.pmddtc.state.gov. Parties who wish to comment anonymously may do so by submitting their comments via www.regulations.gov, leaving the fields that would identify the commenter blank and including no identifying information in the comment itself.

This rulemaking is exempt from section 553 (Rulemaking) and section 554 (Adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States Government. Although the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the APA, the Department is publishing this rule as a final rule with 45-day provision for public comment, without prejudice to its determination that controlling the import and export of defense services is a military or foreign affairs function. The Department will review and respond to all relevant comments and make any necessary amendments.

Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule under the criteria of 5 U.S.C. 804.

This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, distributed 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 is being treated as a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Department believes that benefits of the rulemaking, narrowing and clarifying the scope of existing USML controls and removing certain notification requirements, outweigh any costs to implement these changes.

The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

This final rule is being reviewed as an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. This rule will remove regulatory uncertainty regarding the controls on the commercial aspects of these technologies that could prevent U.S. companies from investing in next generation technologies.

For reasons stated in the preamble, the State Department amends 22 CFR parts 121 and 123 as follows:

The Event Director, Swiss Bear Inc., with approval from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the U.S. 70 (Alfred C. Cunningham) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2018 Mumfest. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 14 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.843(a). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position and open every two hours, on the hour, from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, October 13, 2018, and from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sunday, October 14, 2018. From 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, October 13, 2018, to 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, October 14, 2018, the drawbridge will open on signal.

The Alfred C. Cunningham Bridge is used by a variety of vessels including recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

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

On June 25, 2018 (83 FR 29483) the EPA proposed to approve and conditionally approve the following rules into the California SIP.

We determined that these rules generally comply with most applicable CAA requirements, but that they do not satisfy the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (7) and section 173(a)(4) of the Act. First, the submitted rules do not contain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources using an actual-to-potential-actual test to determine applicability of major source requirements. Second, the rules do not incorporate the requirement at section 173(a)(4) of the Act, which states that nonattainment NSR permit programs shall provide that permits to construct and operate may not be issued if the EPA Administrator has determined that the applicable implementation plan for the nonattainment area is not being adequately implemented. These deficiencies are the basis for the EPA's final conditional approval of the District's June 17, 2016 submittal. The District and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have committed to adopt and submit revisions to address the identified deficiencies by July 31, 2019, consistent with the requirements at CAA section 110(k)(4) for conditional approval. Based on our evaluation of the submitted rules, the EPA proposed to fully approve the SDAPCD's August 22, 2016 and November 21, 1986 submittals (consisting of Rules 11, 20, and 24), and to conditionally approve the District's June 17, 2016 submittal (consisting of Rules 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, and 20.6).

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one comment. This comment raised issues outside the scope of this rulemaking, including renewable energy spending in other countries. This comment is not germane to our evaluation of these SDAPCD NSR Rules.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) and (k)(4) of the Act, the EPA is approving and conditionally approving these rules into the California SIP as proposed. While we cannot grant full approval of the June 17, 2016 submittal at this time, the SDAPCD and CARB have satisfactorily committed to address deficiencies listed in our proposed action by providing the EPA with a SIP submittal by July 31, 2019, which will include specific rule revisions that would adequately address the deficiencies. If the State submits the rule revisions that it has committed to submit by this deadline and the EPA approves the submission, then these deficiencies will be cured. However, if the State fails to submit these revisions within the required timeframe, the conditional approval will become a disapproval, and the EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. The EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. A finding of disapproval would start an 18-month clock to apply sanctions under CAA section 179(b) and a two-year clock for a Federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c)(1).

In this action, the EPA is also correcting an error in the existing regulatory text. On June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28240) we approved regulatory materials from CARB's submittal dated August 22, 2016 into 40 CFR 52.220 at paragraph (c)(488). We inadvertently provided an incorrect date of April 21, 2016, for the CARB submittal in the June 21, 2017 regulatory text. As this action addresses additional materials that were submitted on August 22, 2016, we are taking action today to correct this error under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes agencies, upon finding “good cause,” to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this correction is unnecessary because this action merely corrects an inadvertent error in the regulatory text added by the June 21, 2017 rulemaking, and is consistent with that action as described in the preamble. The EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be interested in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this action being finalized, since this action does not change the EPA's analysis or overall action as stated in the June 21, 2017 rulemaking. This correction will become effective on the same date as the other changes to the regulatory text, as set out above.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, 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 Clean Air Act; and

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 3, 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).)

Part 52, chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Each State has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each State must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP and are identified in part 52 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the State regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that EPA has approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a State implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action if necessary.

The SIP is a living document which a State revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67407), EPA published a document in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for the District of Columbia. On August 6, 2004 (69 FR 47773), September 6, 2005 (70 FR 52919), March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11647), February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9652), and March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14458), EPA published updates to the IBR material for the District of Columbia. Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved into the SIP the following regulatory changes to the following District of Columbia regulations:

None.

1. Chapter 1 Section 199 (Definitions and Abbreviations).

2. Chapter 5 Section 502.1 through 502.15 (Sampling, Tests, and Measurements).

3. Chapter 8 Section 801 (Sulfur Content of Fuel Oils).

4. Chapter 8 Section 899 (Definitions and Abbreviations).

None.

In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of May 14, 2018 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.470(b).

EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

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 previously EPA approved regulations promulgated by the District of Columbia and federally effective prior to May 14, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 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 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the District of Columbia SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for the District of Columbia.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

Each State has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each State must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them and then submit the proposed SIP revisions to EPA. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA, and after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally-approved SIP and are identified in part 52 “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans,” title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The full text of the State regulation approved by EPA is not reproduced in its entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but is “incorporated by reference.” This means that EPA has approved a given State regulation with a specific effective date. The public is referred to the location of the full text version should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP. The information provided allows EPA and the public to monitor the extent to which a State implements a SIP to attain and maintain the NAAQS and to take enforcement action if necessary.

The SIP is a living document which a State revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997 Federal Register document. On December 7, 1998 (63 FR 67407), EPA published a document in the Federal Register beginning the new IBR procedure for Delaware. On June 21, 2004 (69 FR 34285), April 3, 2007 (72 FR 15839), April 17, 2009 (74 FR 17771), May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24372), September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58465), and May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24529) EPA published updates to the IBR material for Delaware.

Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has not made any regulatory changes to paragraph (c) of the Delaware SIP. However, in paragraph (c), EPA is correcting the title in section 1112 to read, Control of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions. In paragraph (d) of the Delaware SIP, source specific requirements, EPA incorporated a Secretary's Order for Delaware City Refining and removed Secretary's orders for SPI Polyols, Inc. and General Chemical Corporation.

In paragraph (d) of the Delaware SIP, source specific requirements, EPA incorporated a Secretary's Order for Delaware City Refining.

None.

In paragraph (d) of the Delaware SIP, source specific requirements, EPA removed Secretary's orders for SPI Polyols, Inc. and General Chemical Corporation.

In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of May 25, 2018 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.420(b), (c), and (d).

EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

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 previously EPA approved regulations promulgated by the State of Delaware and federally effective prior to May 25, 2018. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Delaware SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Delaware.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

States must submit infrastructure SIP submissions meeting the applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA within three years after EPA's promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the new or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP purposes, as applicable, related to the newly established or revised NAAQS. In particular, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires states to include provisions in their SIP to address the state board requirements of section 128. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP that require that any state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall have a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not receive a significant portion of their income from parties subject to such permits or enforcement orders (section 128(a)(1)); and require that the members of any such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest (section 128(a)(2)).

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 30, 2018 (83 FR 13712), EPA proposed to approve Mississippi's June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, parallel processing submissions related to the state board requirements as meeting the significant portion of income requirements of section 128(a)(1), and also as meeting the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In the NPRM, EPA also proposed approval of the new supplemental provisions regarding representation of the public interest of section 128(a)(1) for the MDEQ Permit Board and Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest of section 128(a)(2) for the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality. The details of Mississippi's submissions and the rationale for EPA's actions related to how Mississippi addressed the requirements of section 128 and the related infrastructure section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the aforementioned NAAQS are explained in the NPRM.

EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of Mississippi's June 26, 2018 1 submission to incorporate into its SIP certain regulatory provisions to address the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1). As a result of the addition of these new SIP provisions to meet the requirements of section 128(a)(1), EPA is also finalizing approval of this submission as satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure requirement for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This final action fully addresses the SIP deficiencies related to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128 from EPA's prior disapprovals of infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11133), 2008 lead NAAQS on March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16566), 2010 NO2 NAAQS on August 16, 2016 (81 FR 63705), 2010 SO2 NAAQS on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67171), and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89391). Thus, this final action also satisfies EPA's FIP obligation with regard to that infrastructure SIP requirement for these NAAQS based on the prior disapprovals.

EPA received comments from a total of nine commenters, but only one commenter submitted comments relevant to this action.

Comment 1: With regard to the parallel proceedings process used in the proposed rulemaking, the Commenter states that: “[b]ecause EPA is required to allow the public to submit meaningful comments, we cannot comment on any changes the State may make after we submit these comments. Therefore, if the State makes any changes after EPA's public comment period is up, EPA could not approve the submittal with those changes without a new public comment period.”

Response to Comment 1: EPA notes that the final SIP revision adopted and submitted to EPA by Mississippi is identical to the draft regulations EPA described in the proposal. As a result, the potential scenario described by the Commenter does not exist in the instant action, as the Commenter and others had the opportunity to comment on the exact regulatory language that was adopted by Mississippi in its final submission and is approved in this final rulemaking action. Nevertheless, EPA takes this opportunity to confirm its longstanding interpretation of parallel processing requirements as allowing EPA to finalize a proposal without further public comment where there are no significant changes in the state's final submission, i.e., when the state's final submission is substantively similar to the draft state regulations on which the NPRM was based. To the extent the Commenter suggests otherwise, EPA disagrees. EPA's established procedures for parallel processing are codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.3 and serve to expedite review of SIP submissions. Under parallel processing, a state will submit a draft SIP revision to EPA prior to final adoption of that revision by the state. If EPA believes the draft SIP submission is approvable, it publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to finalization at the state level and the public is able to comment on EPA's proposed approval of the state's draft SIP submission. After finalization at the state level and receipt of the final submission from the state, EPA reviews this final submittal and can finalize its prior proposed approval of the submission if it is substantively similar to the draft. If there are significant changes in the state's final submission such that it is not substantively similar to the prior draft, then EPA will issue a subsequent proposal to solicit comment on those changes or other issues that were not included in the initial proposed action. By this process, commenters are provided an opportunity to comment on all pertinent issues related to the SIP submission, as mandated under Federal law establishing procedural requirements for agency rulemakings. EPA notes that this approach was reflected in the proposed rulemaking for this action wherein we stated that if the State's SIP submission as finally adopted and submitted to EPA is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed rulemaking, then “EPA will evaluate those changes, and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of proposed rulemaking.” See 83 FR 13713.

Comment 2: The Commenter notes that the submission does not include evidence of adoption of the SIP revision and states that EPA cannot approve the SIP submittal without this evidence.

EPA Response to Comment 2: Because SIP submissions that a state submits for parallel processing are by definition not yet final at the state level, 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.3 provides exceptions from the SIP completeness criteria specified in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.0. Appendix V, 2.3.1(b) does not require a state to provide evidence of adoption of the plan in final form at the state level in a SIP submission submitted for parallel processing. The state, however, is required to submit a SIP submission meeting these completeness requirements before EPA can make a final determination of approvability. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.3.2. For this action, Mississippi's final submission includes the required evidence of adoption of the SIP revisions in Attachment 3 of the Technical Support Document.

Comment 3: The Commenter states that EPA should include the dates of the version of the State's code and regulations it is incorporating by reference so that future readers can determine exactly what language is incorporated by reference. More specifically the Commenter states that: “EPA should specify that it is incorporating by reference the July 1, 2016 version of paragraph 6 of Section 49-2-5 and the effective date, which we cannot determine by the documents in the current docket, of the Mississippi Administrative Code.”

EPA Response to Comment 3: EPA agrees that incorporations by reference should specify the appropriate state law effective date as a means of identifying the precise version of the statutory or regulatory requirements at issue in a SIP submission. In this instance, July 1, 2016, is the state law effective date for Mississippi Code section 49-2-5(6). This final action specifies the provisions that are being incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.1270 and identifies them by their state law effective dates. EPA notes that SIP submissions that states submit for parallel processing are not required to identify the state effective date (see 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.3.1(b)). In fact the state law effective date of draft SIP submissions that a state submits for parallel processing would typically not be known at the time of submission, because submissions for parallel processing will often (if not always) predate adoption at the state level. But again, EPA cannot make a final determination of plan approvability until the state adopts the final version of the state law at issue in the SIP submission and submits evidence of adoption with the state law effective date in its final submission.

Comment 4: The Commenter also notes a typographical error in EPA's proposed action in the second column of 83 FR13715. Specifically, the Commenter notes that the proposal states: “and a process for replacing members as needed to ensure that a majority does derive a significant portion of income from regulated entities,” but should state: “and a process for replacing members as needed to ensure that a majority does not derive a significant portion of income from regulated entities. (Emphasis added)”

EPA Response to Comment 4: EPA acknowledges that the omission of the word “not” from the preamble to EPA's proposed action was a scrivener's error and that the Commenter is correct that the word “not” should be inserted into this statement, consistent with EPA's discussion of the SIP revision in the proposal and the actual provisions EPA is incorporating in this 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 Mississippi Code section 49-2-5, state effective date July 1, 2016, which includes certain section 128 requirements for the MDEQ Commission on Environmental Quality. EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by reference of “Air Emissions Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants” Title 11, Part 2, Chapter 1, Rule 1.1, state effective date June 25, 2018; and “Regulations Regarding Administrative Procedures Pursuant to the Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act”, Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1, state effective date May 11, 2018, which both include certain section 128 requirements for the MDEQ Permit Board. 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 in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

As described above, EPA is taking action to approve SIP revisions needed to assure that Mississippi's SIP meets the significant portion of income requirements of 128(a)(1) of the CAA. Approval of Mississippi's June 26, 2018 submission also meets the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With this approval, the deficiencies that EPA identified in the previous partial disapprovals of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions related to the significant portion of income requirements respecting state boards for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS are resolved. This action therefore removes EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP to address these CAA state board requirements for Mississippi. Finally, EPA is also approving the new supplemental provisions regarding representation of the public interest of section 128(a)(1) for the MDEQ Permit Board and Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest of section 128(a)(2) for the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality.

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 December 3, 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:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to the EPA a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These ambient standards currently address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin through air pollution regulations and control strategies. The EPA approved SIP regulations and control strategies are federally enforceable.

Texas submitted a revision to its SIP to update and improve the mobile source incentive program regulations for diesel vehicles, clean fleets and drayage trucks.1 Specifically, on May 25, 2018, the State of Texas through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted revisions to its Mobile Source Incentive Programs that are found in Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC), Chapter 114 (Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles), Subchapter K (Mobile Source Incentive Programs). The May 25, 2018, submittal revised regulations for the (1) Diesel Emissions Reduction Incentive Program for On-Road and Non-Road Vehicles (Division 3), (2) Texas Clean Fleet Program (Division 5), and (3) Drayage Truck Incentive Program (Division 8, renamed as “Seaport and Rail Yard Areas Emissions Reduction Program”).

In general, economic and mobile source incentive programs are programs that provide economic incentives for reducing air pollution emissions from on-road heavy-duty motor vehicles and non-road equipment emission sources. Because the SIP submittal revision pertains to economic incentive programs to reduce air pollution emissions from mobile sources, we evaluated them using (1) CAA section 182(g) (Economic Incentive Program) (2) our policy guidance on economic incentive programs found in 40 CFR part 51, subpart U (Economic Incentive Programs) and (3) our guidance document “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs” (EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001, www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/eipfin.pdf). An economic incentive program achieves an air quality objective by providing market-based incentives or information to emission sources. Three fundamental principles apply to all approvable economic incentive programs: Integrity, equity, and environmental benefit.

Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51.493 (State Program Requirements), Economic Incentive Programs (EIPs) shall be (1) State and federally enforceable, (2) nondiscriminatory, and (3) consistent with the timely attainment of national ambient air quality standards, all applicable reasonable further progress and visibility requirements, applicable prevention of significant deterioration increments, and all other requirements of the CAA. Programs in nonattainment areas for which credit is taken in attainment and RFP demonstrations shall be designed to ensure that the effects of the program are quantifiable and permanent over the entire duration of the program, and that the credit taken is limited to that which is surplus. Statutory programs shall be designed to result in quantifiable, significant reductions in actual emissions.2 As discussed below, we find the State's SIP revision submittal is consistent with above-referenced elements and our review and evaluation of the revisions are discussed in detail in our Technical Support Document (TSD).

We have prepared a TSD for this rulemaking which details our evaluation of the SIP revisions. Our TSD may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0386. As detailed more below, and in our TSD, we believe the SIP revisions to the Texas mobile source incentive programs meet the federal EIP requirements and are approvable. The Texas Mobile Source Economic Incentive Programs are consistent with the CAA as they will reduce air pollution and emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), which is a precursor to ozone and particulate matter. The emission reductions from replacing vehicles or replacing, repowering or retrofitting engines can be quantified, and provide an environmental benefit by reducing air pollution emissions by encouraging the use of newer diesel technologies in the Texas nonattainment areas. If Texas includes emission reductions from these programs in future attainment or reasonable further progress SIPs, EPA will evaluate the amount of reductions it achieves at that time. We are approving the Texas SIP submittal as part of the Texas SIP.

As stated earlier, we have previously approved the Texas mobile source incentive program regulations as meeting CAA and 40 CFR 51.493 regulatory requirements (See 82 FR 26756, June 9, 2017; 79 FR 5287, January 31, 2014; 75 FR 18061, April 9, 2010; 70 FR 18308, April 11, 2005). The May 25, 2018 SIP revision continues to meet these federal requirements.

A summary of our evaluation is discussed below:

The Diesel Emission Reduction Incentive Program for On-Road and Non-Road Vehicles provides funding for businesses to reduce emissions from diesel engines. The program includes a component that applies to small businesses. The revisions to this program revise 30 TAC Sections 114.620, 114.622 and 114.623. The revisions amended the 30 TAC 114.622(h) Incentive Program Requirements from the Executive Director “shall” to “may” waive certain program eligibility criteria “on a finding of good cause.” 3 The revisions amended the definition of a “Small Business” to a business that (1) owns or operates not more than five vehicles (previously 2), (2) owns or operates an on-road diesel vehicle (previously one with a pre-1994 engine model) or a non-road diesel (previously one with uncontrolled emissions) and (3) has owned the on-road or non-road diesel subject to the funding for more than two years (previously one year). This revision would expand the small business component of the program and make it more efficient by focusing on older diesel engines. An itemized list of the revisions, with our evaluation of each, is provided in the TSD.

The Texas Clean Fleet Program provides funding to businesses with a fleet of 75 or more vehicles to replace diesel vehicles with a lower emitting hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle. The revisions to this program revise 30 TAC Sections 114.650-114.653. The number of vehicles qualifying for replacement was revised to 10 or more (previously 20 or more). This revision would allow for more replacements to be eligible for the program. The revisions include a change in definition from “clean transportation triangle” to “clean transportation zone” that would include additional counties that were not a part of the previous “clean transportation triangle.” The revisions include a change to 30 TAC 114.653(e) from the executive director “shall” to “may” waive certain specified eligibility criteria upon “a finding of good cause.” 4 An itemized list of the revisions, with our evaluation of each, is provided in the TSD.

The Seaport and Rail Yard Areas Emissions Reduction Program (formerly the Drayage Truck Incentive Program) provides funding to encourage owners to reduce emissions from drayage trucks at seaports and rail yards. Drayage refers to the transport of goods over a short distance. The revisions to this program revise 30 TAC Sections 114.680-114.682. In addition to changing the name of the program, the revisions changed the requirements for replacing or repowering drayage trucks. As revised, the replacement engine must: (1) Be powered by an electric motor or contain an engine certified to current federal emissions standards and (2) emit at least 25% less NOX. In addition, unless otherwise determined by the commission, the NOX emissions rate of engines replaced or purchased under this program will be based on the emissions standard or family emissions limit to which the engine is certified or, for replacement of an uncontrolled engine, a baseline emissions rate established by the commission.5 The previous requirements were that: (1) The replacement drayage truck have an engine of model year 2010 or later and (2) the drayage truck being replaced must have an engine of model year 2006 or earlier. This revision would set a minimum in the amount of NOX reduced (at least 25% less). An itemized list of the revisions, with our evaluation of each, is provided in the TSD.

Section 110 (l) of the CAA requires that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the CAA shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in Section 7501 of the CAA) or any other applicable requirements of the CAA. As the regulation revisions discussed above pertain to voluntary incentive programs for reducing emissions, they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA approval of the revisions is consistent with CAA 110(l).

We are approving revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to regulations to control air pollution from motor vehicles with mobile source incentive programs. Specifically, we are approving revisions to 30 TAC Sections 114.620, 114.622, 114.623, 114.650-114.653, and 114.680-114.682.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on January 2, 2019 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by November 5, 2018. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 6 Office (please contact Randy Pitre, (214) 665-7299, [email protected] 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this 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. 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 December 3, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR part 50—National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

In a proposed rulemaking published on May 21, 2018 (83 FR 23407), EPA proposed to approve into the Tennessee SIP a portion of a revision to Chattanooga/Hamilton County's air quality rules in Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, submitted by TDEC on behalf of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau on June 25, 2008. Specifically, EPA proposed to approve a new version of Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City Code “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” 1 which was updated to be consistent with the Federal NAAQS in effect at the time of the SIP submittal in 2008. The details of Tennessee's submission and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before June 20, 2018. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed action. EPA is now taking final action to approve the above-referenced revision.

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 Regulation Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21, “Ambient Air Quality Standards,” State effective on June 11, 2008. 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.2

EPA is taking final action to approve a change to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP for Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-41, Rule 21. EPA has evaluated the relevant portion 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 December 3, 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:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

EPA is granting final approval of Iowa's request to redesignate the Council Bluffs area to attainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. On September 18, 2017, the State submitted a request for redesignation that demonstrates NAAQS attainment and an associated maintenance plan to ensure that the area continues to attain the standard. The basis for EPA's final approval is that the area met the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for approval as discussed below.

On October 15, 2008, EPA promulgated a revision to the Pb NAAQS, lowering the standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 0.15 µg/m3 (73 FR 66963). The State conducted ambient air monitoring for Pb in the Council Bluffs area near Pb emitting facilities. The 2010 through 2012 design value for Pb at the monitor was 0.26 µg/m3, violating the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

Effective December 31, 2011, EPA designated a portion of Pottawattamie County, Council Bluffs, Iowa, as nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (76 FR 72097). EPA approved the State's SIP revision for the plan to bring the area into attainment of the Pb NAAQS in a Federal Register action dated February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9770). The area attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS by the statutory deadline of December 31, 2016. The 2014 through 2016 design value for the area is 0.10 µg/m3.

EPA's proposed approval document dated August 16, 2018, (83 FR 40728) presents a detailed analysis of the CAA requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the State containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA. EPA believes the area has met these criteria and that the State's maintenance plan will ensure that the area continues to attain the standard.

The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed document from August 16, 2018, through September 17, 2018. During this period, EPA received one comment which is available in the docket but outside of the scope of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA will not provide a specific response to the comment.

EPA is granting final approval of Iowa's request to redesignate the Council Bluffs area to attainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Based on the detailed analysis presented in its proposed approval document dated August 16, 2018, (83 FR 40728), EPA believes that the State's September 18, 2017, request for redesignation demonstrates NAAQS attainment and the associated maintenance plan will ensure that the area continues to attain the standard. Thus, EPA is approving the redesignation request for the area and associated maintenance plan.

EPA has determined that these actions are effective immediately upon publication under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Section 553(d)(1) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication if a substantive rule “relieves a restriction.” These actions qualify for the exception under section 553(d)(1) because they relieve the State of various requirements for the Area. Furthermore, section 553(d)(3) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” EPA finds good cause to make these actions effective immediately pursuant to section 553(d)(3) because they do not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the actions take effect.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:

Table of Contents I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning B. Foam Blowing C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection D. Cleaning Solvents E. Aerosols Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes 1

1 On April 27, 2018 (83 FR 18431) EPA provided information on the Agency's plan to address the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA. That decision vacated the 2015 Rule (80 FR 42870) “to the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs with a substitute substance” and remanded the rule to EPA for further proceedings. EPA plans to issue a proposed rule to address the court's vacatur and remand in early 2019.

This action is limited to listing as acceptable additional substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning, foam blowing, fire suppression, cleaning solvents, and aerosols sectors. This action presents EPA's most recent decision to list as acceptable several substitutes throughout different SNAP end-uses. New substitutes are:

• R-448A in ice skating rinks (retrofit equipment only);

• R-449A in ice skating rinks (retrofit equipment only);

• R-449B in ice skating rinks (retrofit equipment only);

• R-450A in ice skating rinks (new and retrofit equipment);

• R-513A in ice skating rinks (new and retrofit equipment);

• Acetone/isopentane blend in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock;

• Powdered Aerosol E in total flooding fire suppression (normally occupied areas); and

• HFO-1336mzz(Z) in electronics cleaning, metals cleaning, and precision cleaning and aerosol solvents.

EPA's review of certain substitutes listed in this document is pending for other end-uses. Listing in the end-uses and applications in this document does not prejudge EPA's listing decision for these substitutes for other end-uses. For many of the substitutes being added through this document to the acceptable lists for specific end-uses, there are other listed substitutes for the end-use whose overall risk is comparable except that they have a lower risk in one SNAP criterion, for example toxicity or global warming potential (GWP). However, for the end-uses addressed in this action, those alternatives have not yet proven feasible in those specific end-uses.

For additional information on SNAP, visit the SNAP portion of EPA's Ozone Layer Protection website at: www.epa.gov/snap. Copies of the full lists of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors are available at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector. For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations are found at: www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations. Substitutes listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or acceptable, subject to use conditions are also listed in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains tables summarizing this action's listing decisions. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the tables provide additional information but these are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the “Further Information” column may not include a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “Further Information” column of the table to use a substitute consistent with section 612 of the CAA, some of these statements may refer to obligations that are enforceable or binding under federal or state programs other than the SNAP program. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry standards and/or building codes. When using these substitutes, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information in this column. Many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices.

You can find submissions to EPA for the substitutes listed in this document, as well as other materials supporting the decisions in this action, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-448A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-448A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-40, is a weighted blend of 26 percent hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number [CAS Reg. No.] 75-10-5); 26 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 21 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 20 percent hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No 754-12-1); and seven percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 30 Listing of R-448A (N-40) in Certain Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-Uses Submission Received May 29, 2014.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed R-448A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; October 11, 2016, 81 FR 70029; July 21, 2017, 82 FR 33809).

Environmental information: R-448A has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, and HFO-1234ze(E) have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; one to four; 2 3 and one to six; 4 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-448A has a GWP of about 1,390. The components of R-448A are excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-448A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm as an eight-hour time-weighted (TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-448A. The manufacturer of R-448A recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 890 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's safety data sheet (SDS), in the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-448A has an ODP of zero, comparable to or lower than other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

R-448A's GWP of 1,390 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks (retrofit), such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-507A, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,990. R-448A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks (retrofit), including R-401A and R-401B with GWPs ranging from 1,182 to 1,288.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds R-448A acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-449A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 40, is a weighted blend of 24.3 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.7 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 25.7 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 25.3 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 30 Listing of R-449A (XP40) in Certain Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-Uses. SNAP Submission Received August 6, 2014.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed R-449A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; October 11, 2016, 81 FR 70029; July 21, 2017, 82 FR 33809).

Environmental information: R-449A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,5 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449A has a GWP of about 1,400. The components of R-449A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-449A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449A. The manufacturer of R-449A recommends an AEL of 830 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-449A has an ODP of zero, comparable to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

R-449A's GWP of 1,400 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks (retrofit), such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-507A with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,990. R-449A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks (retrofit), including R-401A and R-401B with GWPs ranging from 1,182 to 1,288.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds R-449A acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449B acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-449B, marketed under the trade name Forane® 449B, is a weighted blend of 25.2 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.3 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 27.3 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 23.2 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 32 Listing of R-449B in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. SNAP Submission Received October 2, 2015.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed R-449B as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., October 11, 2016, 81 FR 70029; July 21, 2017, 82 FR 33809).

Environmental information: R-449B has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,6 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449B has a GWP of about 1,410. The components of R-449B are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-449B, as formulated and even considering the worst-case fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449B. The manufacturer of R-449B recommends an AEL of 865 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-449B has an ODP of zero, comparable to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

R-449B's GWP of 1,410 is lower than or comparable to that of acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks (retrofit), such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-507A with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,990. R-449B's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for ice skating rinks (retrofit), including R-401A and R-401B with GWPs ranging from 1,182 to 1,288.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds R-449B acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-450A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-450A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-13, is a weighted blend of 42 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2), and 58 percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropro-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Materials for Notice 30 Listing of R-450A in Vending Machines.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed R-450A as acceptable for use as a refrigerant in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863; July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053).

Environmental information: R-450A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), have GWPs of 1,430 and one to six,7 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-450A has a GWP of about 600. The components of R-450A are both excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-450A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 800 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), respectively, the components of R-450A. The manufacturer of R-450A recommends an AEL of 880 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the manufacturer's AEL and AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-450A has an ODP of zero, comparable to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

R-450A's GWP of 600 is lower than that of other acceptable substitutes (for new and retrofit use for ice skating rinks) such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-507A with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,990. R-450A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for new ice skating rinks, including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression and carbon dioxide with GWPs ranging from zero to 1.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds R-450A acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds R-513A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

R-513A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 10, is a weighted blend of 44 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2), and 56 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 30 Listing of R-513A (XP10) in Certain Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-Uses. SNAP Submission Received July 24, 2014.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed R-513A as acceptable for use as a refrigerant in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; May 23, 2016, 81 FR 32241; July 21, 2017, 82 FR 33809).

Environmental information: R-513A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 1,430 and one to four,8 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-513A has a GWP of about 630. The components of R-513A are both excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

Flammability information: R-513A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively, the components of R-513A. The manufacturer of R-513A recommends an AEL of 653 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the manufacturer's AEL and AIHA WEELs and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-513A has an ODP of zero, comparable to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

R-513A's GWP of 630 is lower than that of other acceptable substitutes for new and retrofit use for ice skating rinks, such as HFC-134a, R-407C, and R-507A with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to 3,990. R-513A's GWP is higher than the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for new ice skating rinks, including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression and carbon dioxide with GWPs ranging from zero to 1.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

EPA finds R-513A acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds Acetone/Isopentane blend acceptable as a substitute for use in:

Acetone/Isopentane, is a weighted blend of 10-30 percent acetone (CAS Reg. No. 67-64-1) and 70-90 percent isopentane (CAS Reg. No. 78-78-4).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 34 Listing of Acetone/Isopentane blend in rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock. SNAP Submission Received August 8, 2017.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed acetone as acceptable for use as a foam-blowing agent in flexible polyurethane and in integral skin polyurethane (March 18, 1994, 59 FR 13044; February 24, 1998, 63 FR 9151). EPA previously listed C3-C6 light saturated hydrocarbons, which include isopentane, as acceptable for use as a foam-blowing agent in a number of foam-blowing end-uses. (August 26, 1994, 59 FR 44240; April 11, 2000, 65 FR 19327).

Environmental information: Acetone/isopentane blend has an ODP of zero. Its components, acetone and isopentane, have GWPs of 0.5 and <10, respectively.9 Acetone is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS, while isopentane is defined as VOC under those regulations.

Flammability information: Acetone/isopentane blend is flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. Higher concentrations may cause central nervous system depression and loss of consciousness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many foam-blowing agents.

For acetone, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 1000 ppm and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has established a threshold limit value (TLV) of 750 ppm, both on an 8-hr TWA. For isopentane, ACGIH has established a TLV of 600 ppm on an 8-hr TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the ACGIH's TLVs for both components and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and other safety precautions common to the foam-blowing industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: Acetone/isopentane blend has an ODP of zero, comparable to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.012.

For rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, acetone/isopentane blend's GWP of <10 is comparable to the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, including EcomateTM, CO2, HFO-1336mzz(Z) and C3-C6 light saturated hydrocarbons with GWPs ranging from less than 1 to approximately 12.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the ACGIH TLVs, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the foam-blowing industry.

EPA finds acetone/isopentane blend acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds Powdered Aerosol E acceptable as a substitute for:

Powdered Aerosol E is generated in an automated manufacturing process during which the chemicals, in powder form, are mixed and then supplied to end users as a solid contained within a fire extinguisher. In the presence of heat, the solid converts to an aerosol consisting mainly of potassium salts. EPA previously listed Powdered Aerosol E as acceptable subject to use conditions in areas that are not normally occupied (71 FR 56359; September 27, 2006). Based on a review of additional information from the submitter to support the safe use of Powdered Aerosol E in normally occupied spaces, EPA now determines that Powdered Aerosol E is also acceptable for use in total flooding systems for normally occupied spaces, and EPA is adding Powdered Aerosol E to the list of acceptable substitutes for total flooding uses, which would include both unoccupied and occupied spaces. In a subsequent rulemaking EPA will remove the previous listing as acceptable subject to use conditions. In the “Further Information” column of the tables summarizing today's listing decisions and found at the end of this document, we also state that use of this agent should continue to be in accordance with the safety guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2010 Standard for Aerosol Extinguishing Systems.

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 34 Listing of Powdered Aerosol E (FirePro) in Fire Suppression. SNAP Submission Received November 17, 2016.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

Environmental information: The active ingredients of Powdered Aerosol E are solids both before and after use; thus, their ODP and GWP are both zero. The gaseous post-activation products for Powdered Aerosol E also have zero ODP and GWPs of 120 or less. The solid active ingredients and particulate post-activation products do not participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions and are not VOCs. The gaseous post-activation products are either not organic or excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

Flammability information: Powdered Aerosol E's post-activation products are nonflammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Exposure to Powdered Aerosol E after activation may cause temporary, mild irritation of the mucous membrane. If eye or skin contact occurs, end users should flush eyes with water or wash skin with soap and water. If inhaled, end users should be removed and exposed to fresh air. Exposure to the post-discharge products is expected to be below the relevant workplace exposure limits for those compounds. Because it is housed in a hermetically sealed container, exposure should not occur unless the system is activated.

The post-activation components of the proposed substitute are common compounds that are not expected to exceed immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) levels from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that apply to occupational and end use exposure.

Information on additional safety recommendations: The discharge of the aerosol results in a reduction of visibility in the protected space due to the uniform distribution of the particulate generated. Use according to the NFPA 2010 Standard will reduce any safety risks due to reduced visibility. In addition, EPA recommends that cross-zone detection systems and abort switches located near an exit from the protected space be employed; improved detection systems within the protected space and manual abort switches outside of the space could help avoid inadvertent discharge.

In the “Further Information” column of the tables summarizing today's listing decisions, EPA recommends the following for establishments manufacturing Powdered Aerosol E and filling containers to be used in total flooding applications:

EPA expects that procedures identified in the SDS for Powdered Aerosol E and good manufacturing practices will be adhered to, and that the appropriate safety and personal protective equipment (PPE) consistent with OSHA guidelines will be used during installation, servicing, post-discharge clean-up and disposal of total flooding systems using Powdered Aerosol E. The manufacturer should provide guidance upon installation of the system regarding the appropriate time after which workers may re-enter the area for disposal to allow the maximum settling of all particulates.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: Powdered Aerosol E has an ODP of zero, comparable to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.048.

For total flooding agents, Powdered Aerosol E's GWP of 0 (and 1 to 120 for certain post-activation products) is lower than that of other acceptable substitutes, such as HFC-227ea, other HFCs, and some HCFC fire suppressants, with GWPs which range from about 1,550 to 14,800. Other acceptable substitutes in this end-use have comparable GWPs ranging from zero to one, such as water, inert gases, and a number of other powdered aerosol fire suppressants.

Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the NFPA 2010 standard, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the fire suppression industry. The potential toxicity risks due to inhalation exposure are common to many total flooding agents, including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same end-use. Powdered Aerosol E's post-activation products are nonflammable, as are all other available total flooding agents.

EPA finds Powdered Aerosol E acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

EPA's decision: EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z)) acceptable as a substitute for use in:

HFO-1336mzz(Z) is also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 34 Listing of HFO-1336mzz(Z) in Cleaning Solvents and Aerosol Solvents. SNAP Submission Received June 19, 2017.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed HFO-1336mzz(Z) as acceptable for use in several refrigeration and air conditioning and foam-blowing end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863; July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; May 23, 2016, 81 FR 32241).

Environmental information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero. It has a 100-year GWP of about nine.10 HFO-1336mzz(Z) is a VOC, and it is not exempted from the definition of VOC under CAA regulation (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. EPA has issued a proposed rule that, if finalized as proposed, would exclude HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS (May 1, 2018; 83 FR 19026).

Flammability information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include skin or eye irritation or frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. EPA issued a Significant New Use Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act on June 5, 2015, to require persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process HFO-1336mzz(Z) for uses other than those described in the Premanufacture Notice (80 FR 32003).

EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(Z) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The WEEL committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and other safety precautions common to the cleaning solvents industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero, comparable to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.033.

For cleaning solvents, HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is lower than that of other acceptable substitutes, such as HFE-7200, HFE-7100, HFC-365mfc and HFC-4310mee with GWPs ranging from 59 to 1,640. HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP is higher than or comparable to the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for cleaning solvents, including acetone, methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE), and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene with GWPs ranging from less than 1 to 7.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the OARS WEEL, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the cleaning solvents industry; moreover, those risks are common to many cleaning solvents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this end-use.

EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable in the end-uses listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

EPA's decision: EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable as a substitute for use in:

HFO-1336mzz(Z) is also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9).

You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Supporting Documentation for Notice 34 Listing of HFO-1336mzz(Z) in Cleaning Solvents and Aerosol Solvents. SNAP Submission Received June 19, 2017.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

EPA previously listed HFO-1336mzz(Z) as acceptable for use in several refrigeration and air conditioning and foam-blowing end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863; July 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053; May 23, 2016, 81 FR 32241).

Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing I.D.1.

Flammability information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not flammable.

Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.D.1, above.

EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(Z) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The WEEL committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and other safety precautions common to the aerosols industry.

Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero, comparable to other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.033.

For aerosol solvents, HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is lower than that of other acceptable substitutes, such as HFE-7200, HFE-7000, HFC-365mfc and HFC-4310mee with GWPs ranging from 59 to 1,640. HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP is higher than or comparable to the GWPs of other acceptable substitutes for aerosol solvents, including acetone, MPHE, and trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene with GWPs ranging from less than 1 to 7.

Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the OARS WEEL, recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS, and other safety precautions common in the aerosols industry; moreover, those risks are common to many aerosol solvents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this end-use.

EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable in the end-use listed above because it does not pose greater overall environmental and human health risk than other available substitutes in the same end-use.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (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 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 allocations of the total allowable catch (TAC) specified in the BSAI are 8,949 metric tons (mt), 36,060 mt, and 115,171 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). The 2018 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves are 46,680 mt, 85,728 mt, and 110,286 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). The 2018 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI are 1,552 mt, 5,040 mt, and 16,478 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018). The 2018 flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 5,593 mt, 10,272 mt, and 13,215 mt as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018).

The Alaska Seafood Cooperative has requested that NMFS exchange 3,650 mt of rock sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC for 2,650 mt of flathead sole and 1,000 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves under § 679.91(i). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.91(i), NMFS exchanges 3,650 mt of rock sole Amendment 80 allocations of the TAC for 2,650 mt of flathead sole and 1,000 mt of yellowfin sole Amendment 80 ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and Amendment 80 ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts.

The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 250 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 250 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 250 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 250 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts.

The Coastal Villages Regional Fund has requested that NMFS exchange 45 mt of flathead sole CDQ reserves and 250 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 295 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 45 mt of flathead sole CDQ reserves and 250 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 295 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts.

Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018), are revised as follows:

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 flatfish exchange by the Alaska Seafood Cooperative, the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association, and the Coastal Villages Regional Fund in the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. 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.